get_handles

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 only states the action and grouping but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires debug privileges, whether it reflects a live snapshot, or any performance implications. The word 'List' implies read-only but that is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits context about which process (likely the current debug target) the handles belong to and whether any setup or target selection is required. An output schema exists to cover return values, but the description alone is minimally complete.

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 the schema is empty, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which aligns with the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the tool lists process handles grouped by type, using the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'windbg_handle' which likely targets a single handle.

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 implies use when an overview of open handles is needed, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The straightforward 'List' verb provides some implied usage context.

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