windbg_analyze_crash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Run !analyze' without explaining whether the command is read-only, what output to expect, or any prerequisites beyond the timing hint. This is a minimal disclosure for a debugger command and leaves important behavioral traits unstated.

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 sentence, immediately front-loads the action, and includes a useful usage hint. No wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple command-wrapper tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about when to use it. However, it does not explain what happens in the absence of a crash context or how the output is delivered, leaving some gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 documents the sole parameter 'verbose' with a clear description ('Use !analyze -v'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Run !analyze on the current state.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like windbg_run_command or windbg_crash_triage, which could also be used for crash analysis.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Best after windbg_open_dump or on an unhandled exception.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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