get_debug_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of entries returned (POGO, CODEVIEW) and notes that the POGO entry is third-party-ATD trigger-arming metadata. It also indicates it is a read operation. However, it references internal documentation paths, slightly reducing clarity.

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 overly long with references to internal docs and fallback scripts that are not essential for tool selection. The first sentence is clear, but subsequent sentences add noise and reduce conciseness.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete: it specifies return values (debug directory entries) and mentions output key 'kind'. However, it does not fully describe the response structure or other potential fields, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe the 'path' parameter—only indirectly as 'PE debug directory'—leaving the agent to infer it is a file path. This is inadequate given the lack of schema documentation.

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 it returns PE debug directory entries including IMAGE_DEBUG_TYPE_POGO and CODEVIEW. It specifies the resource and what it returns, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_authenticode or get_sections.

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 explains that the CODEVIEW entry is for PDB pointer and that the canonical vendor-tag signal is resolved by a different tool (re-pdb parse_pdb), implying this tool is not for that purpose. It also mentions a fallback script for hosts without the tool, providing context on when to use this MCP tool.

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