windbg_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (quit session, release target), adding 'release the target' as extra context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the target process is terminated or if unsaved state is lost, which would be useful.

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 concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the action. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous content.

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, parameterless, no-output tool, the description is adequately complete. It explains what the tool does and the effect on the target, though it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., active session) or potential error states, which would round out completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per guidance, 0 params merits a baseline of 4. The description has no parameter explanations to provide, and none are needed.

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 ('Quit') and resource ('cdb session') and adds 'release the target,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like windbg_break_in or windbg_continue. It unambiguously states the tool's purpose.

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 usage (ending a debugging session) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as windbg_break_in (pause) or windbg_continue (resume), nor mention preconditions like an active session. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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