windbg_crash_triage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's composite behavior by listing the specific diagnostic components included. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), performance, or output format, which are relevant for a crash analysis tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear usage recommendation. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 composite tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the specific analyses performed. It could be improved by stating the output format, but the listed components imply the return contents.

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, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description adds context by indicating what the tool does without needing parameter explanations.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Full crash triage in one call' followed by the concrete components (!analyze -v, registers, call stack, exception record, fault address context). This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like windbg_call_stack or windbg_registers.

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?

Offers explicit timing guidance: 'Best first tool after hitting a crash.' This clarifies when to use it as the initial triage step. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and strong.

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