windbg_module_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show detailed info' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose any prerequisites (e.g., module must be loaded) or whether symbol loading is triggered. Adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that conveys verb, resource, and output details without unnecessary words. It is perfectly scoped for a simple tool.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a clear idea of what the tool does and what output to expect (paths, version, symbols). It could mention return formatting or error conditions, but for a simple read-only info tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the `name` parameter beyond what the schema already states (module name without extension). It neither helps nor hinders.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('detailed info for one module'), listing concrete contents (paths, version, symbols). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool `windbg_list_modules` which lists modules, by specifying 'one module'.

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 'one module' implies the user already knows the specific module name, and thus distinguishes from listing all modules. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative `windbg_list_modules` or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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