windbg_open_dump

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Open' but does not explain side effects such as whether the current debug session is replaced, whether windbg must already be running, or what state the debugger enters after opening the dump. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool that changes the debugging 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The description efficiently states the purpose and points to a complementary tool, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action and a suggested next step. It lacks deeper context about session impact, but given the low complexity, it is fairly complete. A score of 4 reflects that it could mention prerequisites (e.g., windbg running) but is otherwise 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter (described as 'Path to .dmp file'). The description adds no additional parameter info beyond what the schema already provides, which is adequate. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: opening a Windows crash dump (.dmp) for post-mortem analysis. It uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('Windows crash dump'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_start_executable or windbg_attach by specifying the post-mortem context.

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 gives clear usage context: for post-mortem analysis of .dmp files, and specifically suggests combining with windbg_analyze_crash for the analysis step. This implies when to use it (when a dump file is available) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like attaching to a live process or starting an executable.

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