windbg_switch_thread_by_tid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying cdb command and accepted input formats, but does not mention side effects (e.g., changes the active thread context for subsequent commands), prerequisites, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes necessary format details. No redundant or filler 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and input formats adequately. It could be slightly more complete by noting the context switch effect on subsequent commands, but given the low complexity, it is mostly sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete accepted formats ('43110', '0x43110', 'pid.tid') beyond what the schema provides, clarifying the expected string inputs.

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 ('Switch debugger context') and the specific resource/mechanism ('by OS thread id using cdb ~~[tid]s'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `windbg_switch_thread` by explicitly targeting OS thread IDs rather than another type of thread identifier.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have an OS thread ID, e.g. from stacks or the 'Id: pid.tid' format. It gives accepted value formats, but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. Clear context, no exclusions.

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