windbg_shadow_stack_return

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the actions: 'dps slot, nearest symbol, and disassembly at poi(slot)', which implies a read-only inspection. It does not mention side effects, but the listed operations clearly indicate non-mutating behavior, adding useful context beyond the tool name.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the precise outputs. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it specifies the slot, the symbol lookup, and the disassembly at the return address. While it does not define 'poi', the context is sufficient for an agent familiar with debugger conventions. Slightly more detail about the return format could make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'index' and 'disasm_count'. The description adds only minor context (e.g., poi(slot) implies the return address is dereferenced from the slot), but does not significantly exceed what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Resolve' and resource 'one shadow stack return slot', clearly indicating a targeted operation on a single slot. It further details the three resolution outputs (dps, nearest symbol, disassembly), distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_shadow_stack which lists all slots.

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 phrase 'one shadow stack return slot' implies this tool is for inspecting a single slot in detail, versus siblings like windbg_shadow_stack that handle the full stack. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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