windbg_shadow_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (dump) and the mechanism (using dps @ssp), but does not explain potential failure modes (e.g., when CET is not enabled), output format, or any side effects. It is adequate for a simple read-like operation but leaves gaps.

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 short sentences, no filler. The method and usage condition are presented immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description effectively conveys purpose and usage context. It does not describe the return value format, but for a simple dump operation this is not a critical omission.

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 both 'count' and 'address' already described. The description's mention of '@ssp' aligns with the schema default but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Dump') and resource ('CET hardware shadow stack'), with the specific command method ('dps @ssp'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like windbg_shadow_stack_compare or windbg_shadow_stack_return, which imply different operations.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful when HW-enforced stack protection is enabled.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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