windbg_start_executable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: 'The target starts SUSPENDED at the initial breakpoint' and explicitly points to the continuation tool. This is valuable context that goes beyond the schema, though it omits other potential side effects like process lifetime or output handling.

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 two sentences long: the first states the purpose, the second provides the critical behavioral detail. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 launch tool with two parameters, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what it does, the suspended state, and the required next step. It doesn't mention whether the call blocks or returns immediately, but the sibling tools like windbg_wait_for_event and windbg_continue fill that gap. The description is adequate for the core workflow.

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 both parameters (exe and args) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Launch a Windows executable under cdb.' The verb 'launch' and resource 'executable' are specific, and this distinguishes it from siblings like windbg_attach (attaching to an existing process) and windbg_open_dump (opening a dump file).

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?

It provides clear context by explaining that the target starts SUSPENDED at the initial breakpoint and instructs the agent to use windbg_continue to run it. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the behavior and follow-up action are clear, and the sibling list makes the differentiation obvious.

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