windbg_read_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: non-blocking and no break-in. The word 'drain' also implies the buffer is consumed, which is a valuable side-effect. While it doesn't cover empty-buffer or error states, the critical behavioral traits are communicated.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action and then the two key constraints, with zero wasted words.

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?

The description sufficiently explains the tool's core purpose and behavior. No output schema exists, but the return value (buffered lines) is implied. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the summary description doesn't need to repeat them. It could mention prerequisites like an active debugger session, but that is generally implied.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides complete meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific action ('Drain') and resource ('currently buffered cdb output'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it operates 'without blocking and without sending break-in.' This makes its purpose unmistakable relative to other windbg tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you want to read buffered output non-blockingly and without interrupting the debuggee. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the behavioral constraints give strong usage guidance.

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