windbg_heap_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' indicates a read-only operation, and the mention of 'pointer/symbol view' adds useful context about output style. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, behavior on invalid addresses, or the exact format of the returned data, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, and every phrase ('heap block', 'bytes', 'pointer/symbol view', 'before and after') contributes meaning. This is concise without losing necessary detail.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic but adequate understanding. It conveys the tool's purpose and scope, but does not explain return values, formatting, or edge cases such as what happens when before/after exceed allocation boundaries. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, additional detail would improve completeness, but the description is minimally viable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters 'address', 'before', and 'after' are already documented clearly. The description's phrase 'before and after' aligns with the parameter names but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides full parameter definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('heap block'), and clarifies the unique scope: bytes and pointer/symbol view both before and after the block. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_heap_block_info, which likely focuses on the block itself, and windbg_read_memory, which reads arbitrary memory.

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 phrase 'before and after' implies the tool is for analyzing a heap block with surrounding context, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like windbg_heap_block_info or windbg_read_memory, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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