pwndbg_argc

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

The description accurately describes a read-only operation ('Print'), but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. It is truthful but minimal.

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 extremely concise, with only three sentences. The key purpose is in the first sentence, and additional context (source, category, parameter description, link) is provided without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it could benefit from a brief usage example or note about common scenarios, though not strictly required.

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 description adds meaning to the single parameter 'session_id' by stating it is 'The UUID of the session', which is not present in the input schema (0% coverage). This clarifies its purpose, though no examples or constraints are given.

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 a specific action ('Print') and resource ('argument count of the running program'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It naturally distinguishes from sibling 'pwndbg_argv' by focusing on the count rather than the arguments themselves.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pwndbg_argv' or other debugging commands. The description lacks any contextual why or when-not-to-use information.

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