windbg_object_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates the operations performed (address eval, symbol lookup, !address, !heap, memory reads, vtable detection, optional span decode) and hints that it is a bundled read-only analysis. It does not cover failure modes or output format, but is reasonably 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 a single, dense, well-structured sentence with zero filler. The core purpose ('One-call object/heap context') is front-loaded, and all additional details are relevant and compact.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonable map of what the tool does and what to expect, including optional behaviors. It lacks explicit dependencies (e.g., requiring an active debug session) but these are conventional within the windbg_* sibling family, so completeness is adequate.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces parameter meanings indirectly (e.g., before/after → 'bytes/pointers around', include_vtable → 'potential vtable', span_count → 'optional VRle::Span decode') but adds no new information beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's function as a composite object/heap context provider, listing specific constituent operations (address eval, symbol, !address, !heap, etc.) that distinguish it from single-purpose siblings. However, the verb is implied ('one-call') rather than explicit, preventing a perfect 5.

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 a convenience use case (perform multiple inspection steps in a single call) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like windbg_run_command or dedicated tools. No exclusions or explicit alternative references are provided, making usage guidance only implicit.

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