windbg_handle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It suggests a read-only inspection via the word 'inspect', and mentions that empty args lists all handles, which indicates a harmless diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention any prerequisites (e.g., kernel debugging required), leaving some ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every word adds value and there is no fluff 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?

Given the tool is a simple wrapper around a single debugger command with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and the meaning of empty args. It could mention the nature of the output or when it is appropriate, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 describes the 'args' parameter with an example, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful clarification that empty args lists all handles, which goes beyond the schema by explaining behavior when the parameter is omitted. This additional semantic value supports a score of 4.

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 runs !handle to inspect kernel handles, using a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('kernel handles'). It distinguishes itself from generic run_command or other windbg tools by specifying the exact purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only added detail is that empty args lists all handles, which is parameter behavior rather than usage context. It does not mention when to use !handle instead of other handle-related tools like get_handles.

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