windbg_io_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly enumerates the four pieces of state returned, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything,' but the verb 'Show' and the nature of the data make that clear. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a colon and a list of four specific items. 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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool reports by listing all four data points. The only minor gap is that 'async age' lacks a unit (e.g., seconds), but this does not materially hinder use of a simple status inspection tool.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so 100% schema coverage is trivial. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to describe.

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 names a precise resource ('MCP-side debugger I/O state'), then lists concrete fields (active cdb PID, buffered output lines, async command, async age). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_status, which presumably reports debugger status rather than MCP-side I/O state.

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 'MCP-side' provides clear context that this is for inspecting the MCP's internal I/O pipeline, not the target process or debugger state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scoping is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it over similar status tools.

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