pwndbg_get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool queries events (likely read-only), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear list of parameters. Every sentence provides value, though the docstring format could be slightly more streamlined.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter details. It does not explain output format, but that is handled by the output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's docstring explains each parameter: session_id as UUID, limit with default 50, event_type with possible values (breakpoint_hit, signal, crash, etc.). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides names and types.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Query debugger events recorded for a session' and lists specific event types (breakpoint hits, signals, crashes, process exits). This is a clear verb+resource, and while there are many sibling tools, it is distinct from breakpoint listing or other query tools.

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 but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like pwndbg_breakpoint_list or pwndbg_continue. It implies usage for retrieving historical events but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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