Correlate Source and Disassembly

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds behavioral guarantees: it does not resume the target, it returns frame-selection reasoning, correlations, operand bindings, and it discloses best-effort collection errors. The 'read-only' statement aligns with annotations and adds no contradiction.

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?

Two dense sentences cover purpose, usage context, sibling alternative, constraints, and return contents. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates what the tool returns: frame-selection reasoning, both correlations, operand bindings, and collection errors. Combined with full schema parameter documentation and sibling differentiation, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds high-level context about project-controlled frames and provenance but does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('correlate') with concrete objects (source locations, disassembly, registers, pointer-like locals) and identifies the exact frames analyzed. It also distinguishes itself from debug_diagnose_stop by naming the depth of analysis, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when a crash is already stopped and instruction/operand provenance matters') and when to prefer the sibling tool ('prefer debug_diagnose_stop for a broader ranked diagnosis'). This gives the agent clear routing among sibling tools.

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