windbg_teb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Dump' and references the cdb command, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, whether a live debuggee is required, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a fully transparent behavioral profile.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and target, and includes the cdb command reference for extra clarity. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description gives a minimal but clear statement of purpose. However, it does not mention what the dumped TEB contains, how it is presented, or any runtime prerequisites. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not fully complete; a more detailed description of the output or use conditions would be beneficial.

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 coverage is vacuously 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly adds nothing beyond the schema since there are no parameters to clarify. It does not introduce any confusion about arguments.

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 verb 'Dump', the resource 'Thread Environment Block', and the scope 'current thread'. It also references the underlying cdb command '!teb', making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_peb (Process Environment Block).

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 by naming the target (current thread's TEB) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It leaves the 'when to use' decision to the agent based on the tool's name and context.

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