LLDB_PRINT

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. The description only states 'Print value of expression' without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, requires an active session, or has side effects. It does not mention output format or behavior on failure.

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 sentence that front-loads the key information (action and object). It is concise with no redundant words, but the brevity sacrifices important behavioral 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what 'print' means (e.g., returns a string, outputs to console) and how this tool relates to similar siblings like LLDB_EXAMINE. It fails to provide enough contextual information for an agent to predict behavior accurately.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: 'LLDB session ID' and 'Expression to evaluate'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond these schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Print value of expression' clearly states the action and object (print value) and mentions expression evaluation. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like LLDB_EXAMINE that might have similar behavior. The verb 'Print' is specific but could be interpreted as outputting to stdout vs returning a result.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites (e.g., a running LLDB session), when-not-to-use, or mention of sibling tools like LLDB_EXAMINE for more detailed inspection.

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