windbg_wait_exception_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: "Does not send break-in on timeout," which informs the agent of a non-default timeout behavior. However, it does not explain the return format, whether it consumes output, or any side effects, leaving significant room for improvement.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear and minimal statement of purpose and one behavioral caveat. However, it omits what the output looks like and how this tool fits into the broader windbg workflow. For a simple wait tool with well-documented parameters, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, with each parameter (profile, timeout, max_lines, tail_lines) having a description. The description mentions the profile enum, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 tool's purpose: "Wait for exception/crash output using a preset filter profile." It specifies the action (wait), the resource (exception/crash output), and the scope (filter profile), which distinguishes it from generic wait tools like windbg_wait_for_event. The added note about not sending break-in further clarifies its specific behavior.

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 for waiting on exception or crash output with filtering, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., windbg_wait_for_event) or state when not to use it. The behavioral note "Does not send break-in on timeout" hints at a difference but is not a direct usage guideline. Context is present but exclusions are absent.

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