windbg_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: filtering of 'Building memory map' progress lines and the ability to cap output. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires an active target, or any side effects. The description is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and adding two specific behavioral details. Every word provides value; no redundancy.

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 description covers the core purpose and extra behavior, but for a tool in a large family of WinDbg tools, it lacks guidance on when to use it vs alternatives and doesn't mention any prerequisites like a paused debuggee or output format. With no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond the schema, merely mentioning output capping in vague terms. The address, timeout, and max_lines semantics are fully defined in the schema, so the description provides marginal value.

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's function: 'Describe a virtual address with !address.' It uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('virtual address') and identifies the underlying WinDbg command. It also mentions filtering and output capping, adding useful scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like windbg_address_to_symbol or windbg_read_memory, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, situations, or exclusions. With many sibling tools like windbg_address_to_symbol and windbg_read_memory offering related functionality, the absence of selection criteria leaves the agent uncertain about tool choice.

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