windbg_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if no session is active, or whether it requires a live target. The list of outputs implies a read-only status query, but the description does not make that explicit.

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 lists the key outputs in a compact, scannable manner. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the main output fields (active, target, RIP, symbol, process, thread) without needing to detail return format. It is sufficient for an agent to know what information to expect, though it could clarify whether the output is a formatted string or structured object.

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 tool takes no parameters (empty schema, 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It would not be improved by adding parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb 'Show' and enumerates the exact resources (session active status, current target, RIP, nearest symbol, current process and thread). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like windbg_io_status or windbg_registers by focusing on a session-level summary rather than a specific subsystem.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it shows, with no mention of contexts (e.g., 'use for a quick session overview') or exclusions. Given the large number of windbg sibling tools, this is a notable gap.

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