windbg_run_command_async

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the crucial non-blocking behavior ('return immediately without waiting for a prompt and without break-in') and the need to retrieve output later. It does not mention failure modes or queueing details, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the action and key behavior and the second providing the necessary next steps. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter async command tool, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, the async behavior, and the follow-up required to obtain output. It does not specify the exact return value or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it is sufficiently contextual.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'command' described as 'Raw cdb command to send'. The tool description repeats 'raw cdb command' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 verb 'Send a raw cdb command' and identifies the tool's async nature by stating it returns immediately without waiting for a prompt or break-in. It also distinguishes this tool from the synchronous sibling by pointing to windbg_wait_for_event/read_output as follow-up actions.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use windbg_wait_for_event/read_output afterward, establishing a clear workflow. It does not directly contrast with the synchronous windbg_run_command, but the absence of wait/break-in implies its use case for non-blocking command dispatch.

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