windbg_decode_spans

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 assumed layout, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe failure modes. This is a reasonable but incomplete transparency level.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and the critical layout assumption. No filler or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description could explain the return format, but it doesn't. It also lacks error-handling or edge-case details. However, for a simple decode tool with clear parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds the layout definition, showing that each span is 8 bytes, which enriches the meaning of the 'count' parameter by implying the total memory size. This goes slightly beyond schema coverage.

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 it decodes VRle::Span entries from memory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like windbg_read_memory by focusing on structured decoding rather than raw memory access.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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