windbg_dt

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It simply states 'Dump a structure type' without mentioning side effects, output format, or limitations such as the need for symbol paths. This is insufficient for a debugger tool that could fail silently or produce large outputs.

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 that immediately conveys the core action and the optional parameter. It is free of redundant phrasing or fluff, earning every word.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context about what the output looks like, whether it requires symbol resolution, or any failure modes. Without an output schema or annotations, this leaves the agent uncertain about expectations, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, including the optional nature of 'address' and example values for 'type_name'. The description's phrase 'Optionally apply to an address' reinforces this but adds little beyond what the schema states, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 action ('Dump a structure type') using a specific command ('cdb dt') and mentions the optional address application. This distinctly separates it from sibling windbg tools like windbg_disassemble or windbg_read_memory, which serve different purposes.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., symbols loaded), exclusions, or when another command might be more appropriate. The only additional context, 'Optionally apply to an address,' is about parameter usage, not tool selection.

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