windbg_thread_stacks

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 describes a read-only operation via 'Show', but does not explicitly state that it doesn't modify state, nor does it mention output format, potential need for a running target, or performance considerations. The command syntax adds some transparency but leaves behavioral details implicit.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second adding practical context. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the essential action. The mention of race condition/UAF provides usage context. Missing details like output formatting or prerequisites are minor since the operation is a simple read of all thread call stacks.

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 the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description adds no param-specific information, but none is required.

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 resource 'call stacks for ALL threads', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_call_stack which targets a single thread. The inclusion of the underlying command 'cdb ~* kP' further clarifies the exact operation.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Essential for race condition / UAF analysis'), and the emphasis on 'ALL threads simultaneously' implies when to prefer this over single-thread alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use criteria.

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