Find Runtime Writer

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool temporarily creates a watch, removes only that watch, never automatically continues through unrelated stops, and uses different mechanisms for DAP vs GDB 14/15. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and safety boundaries.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the core action, the second gives usage boundaries, and the third explains protocol behavior and cleanup guarantees. Every sentence adds distinct, necessary information.

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 is complete for a complex tool with 11 parameters: it covers purpose, safe usage, exclusions, protocol differences, cleanup behavior, and the nature of the resulting stop. The schema and output schema fill in remaining structured details, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings. The description adds protocol-level context such as DAP vs GDB behavior and the bounded watch fallback, but most individual parameter semantics are already fully captured in the input schema itself.

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 states a specific action chain: temporarily watch a variable/expression, resume the target, and capture the first stop to identify the immediate writer candidate. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as the corruption-provenance diagnostic and explicitly separating it from crash-dump use.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after a stopped-state diagnosis suggests corruption and runtime provenance is needed. It also provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: not for crash dumps or when resuming is unsafe, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative to use instead.

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