pwndbg_dumpargs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It explains automatic calling convention detection and resolved value display. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe (read-only) or note any prerequisites like must be stopped at a call instruction. The absence of annotations means the description carries the burden, and it partially fulfills it.

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 starts with a clear one-line purpose, but then includes a repetitive sentence ('Automatically detects...') and extra metadata (source file, category, link). This could be more concise. However, it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description explains parameters and basic behavior, but lacks error conditions, what happens if not at a call site without force, and does not mention the output despite having an output schema. Given the complexity of the tool, more details on usage constraints would improve completeness.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: session_id as 'the UUID of the session' and force as 'force dumping even if not at call site'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 dumps determined arguments for the current call/syscall instruction. It specifies the verb 'dump' and resource 'arguments at call/syscall instruction', distinguishing it from siblings like pwndbg_argc or pwndbg_argv which handle different argument 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 implies usage at a call or syscall instruction, explaining that it automatically detects calling conventions. The force parameter is explained for use when not at a call site. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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