windbg_stack_find_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the search capability and the optional switch, but does not mention potential side effects such as changing the active debugger thread context, performance implications of scanning all stacks, or output format. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the primary function and the optional behavior. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core purpose, with no redundant filler.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and highlights the key optional behavior. However, it does not mention return values or how to interpret the search results, nor does it elaborate on the switch side effects. Given the schema coverage, this is complete enough, but a bit more context about output would push it to 5.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'regex/module/SP/address,' which maps to the 'pattern' and 'sp' parameters already documented in the schema. No additional meaning is provided.

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 function with specific verbs and resources: 'Search all thread stacks for a regex/module/SP/address' and 'optionally switch to the matching thread.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_thread_stacks (which likely only displays stacks) and windbg_switch_thread (which directly switches without searching).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find a thread whose stack matches a pattern and possibly switch to it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the search-and-switch combination is sufficiently distinctive to imply usage relative to siblings.

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