windbg_list_modules

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. It does convey that this is a read-only listing operation and even reveals the underlying cdb command, but it does not describe the output format, whether the debuggee must be in a specific state, or any limitations. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose, followed by a compact note about the filter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function and filter. However, it does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., full module paths, names only), any required debugger state, or edge cases. Given the lack of annotations, this leaves some gaps in contextual completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for the 'filter' parameter with a description and example. The description adds the cdb command context ('lm m <pattern>'), which is a minor enhancement beyond the schema but does not significantly alter the baseline score of 3.

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's function: 'List loaded modules' – a specific verb and resource. The optional name filter adds detail, distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_list_processes or windbg_list_threads, and the reference to the cdb command 'lm m' reinforces its specific behavior.

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 implies usage via the tool name and 'List loaded modules', but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like windbg_module_info, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., a running debug session). The optional filter is mentioned but no exclusion or alternative is stated.

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