pwndbg_dt

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses core behavior: displaying fields/offsets/sizes and optionally reading memory for actual values. It also references the source command and provides a documentation link. However, it does not address edge cases like invalid typename, missing symbols, or how errors are handled, which would enhance transparency.

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 well-structured with a summary line, detailed explanation, and parameter list. It is slightly verbose due to metadata (source path, category) that may not be necessary for tool invocation. However, it remains clear and front-loaded, earning its space.

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 parameter richness (3 params, 2 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's main purpose, optional behavior, and parameter meanings. It does not explain potential errors or limitations (e.g., only works with loaded debug symbols), but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter: session_id as UUID, typename as type name (e.g., 'struct malloc_chunk'), and address as optional memory address. It gives concrete examples and clarifies optionality, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states 'Dump type information, optionally overlaid on a memory address.' This clearly identifies the tool as inspecting type definitions (struct/class) with optional memory overlay. The verb 'dump' and resource 'type information' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from siblings like pwndbg_telescope or pwndbg_heap that focus on different memory aspects.

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 what the tool does and its optional address parameter, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., debuggee running, symbols loaded) or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated from other type-related or memory inspection tools among the many siblings.

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