windbg_switch_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavior (switching debugger context) but does not mention prerequisites, side effects on subsequent commands, or error conditions. It is transparent about the action but lacks additional behavioral context.

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 states everything essential. No filler or repetition. It earns its place.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient for correct use. It could mention the alternative windbg_switch_thread_by_tid for completeness, but it already tells the agent where to get the index, making it adequately complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'index.' The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but the parameter description already specifies it is a thread index from windbg_list_threads. Baseline 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 states a specific action: 'Switch debugger context to a specific thread index.' It uses a clear verb+resource pair and distinguishes from the sibling tool windbg_switch_thread_by_tid by specifying 'index' rather than TID.

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 and parameter schema ('from windbg_list_threads') imply the tool should be used after listing threads to obtain an index. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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