windbg_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns an orientation cheatsheet covering workflow, concepts, address forms, and timeout semantics. It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no side effects', but the nature of a cheatsheet and the absence of any mutating language make the behavior sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a targeted usage recommendation. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 help/orientation tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the cheatsheet contains, when to call it, and its role relative to the broader toolset. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool’s content rather than parameter syntax.

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 ('Show') and resource ('quick orientation cheatsheet for this MCP'), clearly distinguishing it from the many action-oriented windbg_* tools. It lists concrete content areas (workflow, key concepts, address forms, timeout semantics), making the purpose highly unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly provides an when-to-use instruction: 'Call this first if you are unsure how to drive the debugger.' While it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the recommendation is clear enough given this is a unique help/orientation tool among its siblings.

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