pwndbg_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool sets a temporary breakpoint and runs, and mentions default timeout. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or whether the action is reversible.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence conveys the purpose, followed by source info, comparison, and parameter details. No superfluous text, though parameter descriptions could be integrated more smoothly.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core behavior, differences from a sibling, and parameter usage. It does not mention prerequisites like a loaded binary, but is mostly complete for a straightforward start-and-stop action.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It defines both parameters: session_id as 'The UUID of the session' and timeout as 'Maximum seconds to wait (default 30)', adding meaning beyond the schema which only had titles.

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's function: 'Start the program and stop at its ELF entry point address.' It specifies the action (start and stop) and the target (ELF entry point), distinguishing it from siblings like 'start' by noting LLDB compatibility.

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 provides clear usage context: it compares with 'start' (GDB-only) and notes 'entry' works on LLDB. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like an existing session.

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