windbg_bp_template

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does hint at behaviors via template names (logging vs. stopping), but it does not disclose side effects such as whether execution halts for logging templates, persistence, or enabling/disabling. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence with clear front-loading of the purpose. Each template listed earns its place, and the wording is compact with no 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?

With a rich schema covering all parameters, the high-level template overview is sufficient for agent selection and initial invocation. No output schema means no return-value obligations. It lacks detailed behavioral nuance but is complete enough given the schema support.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying what the template parameter does (log this/args, log expression, etc.) and maps to the enum options, which the schema only labels as 'Breakpoint template'.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Set a breakpoint') from an 'AI-friendly template' and enumerates distinct behavioral templates (log, stop on signed-negative, pointer range, stack log), clearly distinguishing this tool from generic breakpoint setters like windbg_set_breakpoint or conditional breakpoints.

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 usage for template-based breakpoints but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling breakpoint tools (e.g., windbg_set_conditional_bp) or mention any exclusions. The listing of template types gives context but lacks direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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