gdb_debug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that running the binary may execute arbitrary code, require ptrace permissions, or have side effects. The 'run' step implies execution but without any caution or context about safety.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and core steps. No wasted words or redundant details.

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?

While the tool is simple with only 2 parameters, the description lacks behavioral context such as return values, potential side effects, or how it fits with sibling tools. No output schema exists, so more detail on what 'inspect' provides 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (filePath and breakpoint). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply mentions breakpoint in passing. With high schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 debugs a binary using GDB, with a specific workflow (set breakpoint, run, inspect). This distinguishes it from sibling static analysis and other debugging tools like radare2_analyze or ghidra_analyze.

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 its usage (interactive debugging with GDB) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as radare2_analyze or dynamic_analysis. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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