windbg_set_source_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Set', which implies mutation but doesn't explain whether this persists, whether it replaces the existing path, or if the debugger must be running. The mention of cdb '.srcpath' hints at the underlying command but doesn't elaborate on behavior.

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?

Single sentence, directly states the action and resource. No 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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about path formatting (e.g., semicolon-separated directories) or how it interacts with source lines lookup. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 schema covers the single 'path' parameter with 'Source path'. The description repeats 'source code search path' but adds no additional syntax or usage details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Set) and resource (source code search path), and references the corresponding cdb command (.srcpath), differentiating it from the similar windbg_set_symbol_path tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. However, the description implies it's for configuring source code lookup for debugging, which is a distinct operation from setting symbol paths or other debugger settings.

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