windbg_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It accurately states that the tool evaluates a cdb expression and maps to the '?' command, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., expressions with assignments) or the format of the return value. This is adequate for a simple evaluation tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and mapping to cdb '?', and the second lists example use cases. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 single-purpose tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and gives examples of usage. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the obvious nature of an evaluation tool, though it could have explicitly mentioned that the result is returned. Overall, the description conveys the essential information.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'expression' parameter with a description and examples. The tool description adds a bit more context by mentioning the cdb '?' command and example use cases, but it does not significantly extend the schema's explanation. Thus, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate a cdb expression (cdb '?')'. It explicitly names the resource (cdb expressions) and action (evaluate), and lists concrete use cases (arithmetic, symbol lookup, casting). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_run_command, which executes arbitrary debugger commands.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by mentioning 'useful for arithmetic, symbol lookup, and casting'. It implies this is for evaluating expressions rather than running arbitrary debugger commands, which aligns with the tool's focused scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives.

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