windbg_find_vtable_owner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosure. It explains the search algorithm and the fallback logic for heap-range discovery, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits any mention of result enrichment (max_hits), timeout behavior, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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, compact, front-loaded with the purpose, then the secondary behavior. No redundant material.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the returned candidates look like or how enrichment works. It explains the search modes but leaves important execution details (e.g., region_timeout, max_hits, require_first_qword effects) to the schema, which is partially acceptable but not fully self-contained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining how heap_start/heap_length select a specific range and how their omission triggers automatic heap-range parsing, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. It also clarifies that the search criterion is the first qword of the heap object.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find heap object candidates whose first qword equals a vtable pointer'), making the core function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling windbg_find_vtable, but the qualifier 'whose first qword equals' is precise enough to convey the intended scope.

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 the two operating modes—explicit range via heap_start+heap_length versus automatic heap-range discovery from !address -f:Heap—which helps agents decide parameter choices. It does not contrast with alternative tools like windbg_find_vtable or windbg_heap, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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