windbg_heap

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It merely says 'Run !heap' without describing output, potential side effects, or whether the command is read-only. This leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 is front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place, and the examples are concise.

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 passthrough wrapper, the description is adequate with usage examples, but it doesn't mention expected output or the broader set of available !heap options. It's minimal and leaves room for more detail.

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 single 'args' parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds concrete usage examples and clarifies the parameter format, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Arguments to !heap'.

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 the !heap command with optional arguments, which is specific and identifies the resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like windbg_heap_block_info or windbg_heap_neighbors, but the generic wrapper intent is clear.

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 example arguments ('-s' for summary, '-p -a <addr>' for block inspection) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus more specialized heap-related siblings. There's no mention of alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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