pwndbg_nextproginstr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the tool breaks at next program instruction and skips library code. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active session), side effects, or behavior when no next program instruction exists. More detail is needed for a complete behavioral picture.

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: a one-line summary followed by source, category, usage hint, and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. Efficient communication.

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 no annotations and low schema coverage, the description should provide a complete picture. It omits output/return value information (despite having an output schema), preconditions, and postconditions. An agent would lack important context about what happens after the breakpoint is set.

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 lists the two parameters with short explanations (session_id as UUID, timeout as max seconds). Although input schema coverage is 0%, this adds meaning beyond types and titles. However, it lacks details on UUID format, timeout behavior, and error conditions, so it is adequate but not thorough.

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 breaks at the next instruction belonging to the running program, distinguishing it from siblings like pwndbg_next, pwndbg_nextcall, etc. The verb 'Break at' and resource 'next instruction belonging to the running program' are specific and differentiate well.

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 explicitly says it is 'useful for skipping over library code to reach the next instruction that belongs to the main binary.' This provides clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the use case is clear.

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