gdb_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that symbols-only is the default and that flash=true programs the target. It also explains the benefit of symbols (source-level debugging). Missing details like prerequisites or side effects (e.g., does it require an active connection? does it reset the target?) but adequate for a simple operation.

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, front-loaded with the main action. It uses precise language and avoids filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and modes. It lacks output/return value info but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly given the available context.

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 schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by explaining why symbols are useful (backtraces with file:line, variable names) and clarifies the flash parameter's effect. This goes beyond the schema's type/description, justifying a 4.

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 loads an ELF file into GDB, and distinguishes between two modes: symbols-only (for source-level debugging) and flashing onto the target. The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'flash' or 'gdb_connect'.

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 when to use symbols-only vs. flashing. However, it does not contrast this tool with the sibling 'flash' tool, which may cause confusion since both can flash. The usage context is clear for the tool's typical use but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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