lldb_examine_variables

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

Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds useful context about program execution ('runs the program until the specified breakpoint') and display behavior, but doesn't mention potential side effects like program state changes during execution or any rate limits.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then execution behavior, followed by parameter and return value sections. It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences, though the parameter section could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a debugging tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the main parameters. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with 0% schema coverage and multiple sibling tools, more parameter guidance would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It mentions the main parameter ('ExamineVariablesInput with executable, breakpoint, and optional variable names') and provides semantic context about what these represent. However, it doesn't detail all sub-parameters like 'args' or 'response_format' that appear in the schema, leaving some gaps.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('examine', 'runs', 'displays') and resources ('local variables and arguments at a breakpoint'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lldb_backtrace (stack trace) or lldb_registers (register values) by focusing specifically on variable inspection during debugging.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('at a breakpoint' for examining variables), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage during debugging sessions but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like lldb_evaluate (which evaluates expressions).

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