agent_get_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the agent's current context including state like breakpoints and goal. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom or performance characteristics. Still, for a simple context getter, this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: one sentence defining what the tool returns and one sentence on usage. Every word earns its place, and the 'USE WHEN' guidance is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema present), the description sufficiently captures the tool's purpose and content. It lists all major context elements and the usage scenario, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are moot. Per baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'agent's current debugging context', and enumerates the concrete contents: target process, current RIP, breakpoints, discovered functions, found patterns, current goal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_status or ida_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes an explicit 'USE WHEN' clause: 'you need to know what the agent already knows before deciding next steps'. This provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.