mco_crash_to_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does so well by disclosing the orchestration across WinDbg and IDA Pro and the combined report output. It does not disclose potential side effects like IDA database modifications or environment prerequisites, but the described pipeline and return value are sufficiently transparent for most operational purposes.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every phrase adds value: the pipeline steps, the destination tools, and the output contents are all specified without filler.

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 complexity of a cross-tool pipeline and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow and explicitly states the return report contents. It could be more complete with prerequisites or failure behavior, but for a one-parameter tool, the essential context is present.

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 schema already fully describes dump_path as 'Full path to the .dmp crash dump file', and the description's mention of 'open a .dmp' aligns with that. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies a multi-step crash analysis pipeline with specific actions: opening a .dmp in WinDbg, extracting the crashing address, pivoting to IDA Pro, decompiling the crashing function, and showing callers. This differentiates the tool from single-purpose siblings like windbg_analyze_crash or ida_decompile.

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 phrase 'Full crash analysis pipeline' establishes clear context for when to use the tool: when a complete end-to-end crash investigation is needed. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative one-off tools, but the workflow description itself implies the tool's role relative to more granular siblings.

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