var_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the mutation effect ('Set') and the halted requirement, but does not detail side effects, memory implications, or reversibility. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds valuable examples. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 covers the precondition, supported variable types, and return type ('Confirmation of variable modification'). It does not detail error conditions or edge cases, but for a simple set operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing concrete examples for name (e.g., 'counter', 'myStruct.field') and value (e.g., '42', '0xFF'), clarifying the types and usage beyond the raw schema.

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 action: 'Set a C/C++ variable to a new value on the target.' It specifies the resource (C/C++ variable), the target state (halted), and distinguishes from siblings like write_variable by focusing on assignable lvalues.

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 provides a precondition ('The target must be halted') and the scope ('Supports any assignable lvalue'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like write_variable or data_set, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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