windbg_source_lines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key prerequisite (requires source path) and implies a read-only action ('Show'), but does not explain the output format, error behavior when source path is missing, or whether line numbers/symbols are included. This leaves important operational behavior unspecified.

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 action ('Show source code lines') and immediately notes the key constraint. Every word earns its place, 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally complete: it states the purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over disassembly or address tools, nor does it describe what happens if the source path is not set. Given no output schema or annotations, the description leaves some contextual gaps for an agent choosing among many siblings.

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 single parameter 'address' is already fully documented in the schema with 'Address (default: current IP)', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the same address focus, so 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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'source code lines around an address', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_disassemble or windbg_address. The parenthetical prerequisite '(requires source path)' further clarifies its scope and differentiates it from assembly-level or raw memory viewing 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 implies the use case—show source-level context for an address—but offers no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria. The source path requirement is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to select this tool over its siblings, leaving the agent to infer its place among the many windbg and IDA tools.

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