lldb_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context by specifying what is listed (executable images, shared libraries, addresses, paths) and mentions filtering via 'filter_pattern', which provides useful behavioral details beyond annotations. However, it does not cover aspects like performance, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the bullet points detail what is shown, and the Args/Returns sections provide necessary context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema (returns str), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type adequately. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'params' argument as 'ImageListInput with executable and optional filter'. It clarifies that 'executable' is required and 'filter_pattern' is optional for filtering by name, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not detail the format or examples for these parameters, 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 specific action ('List loaded executable images and shared libraries') and resource ('loaded images with addresses'), distinguishing it from siblings like lldb_backtrace or lldb_threads. It provides concrete examples of what is shown (main executable, shared libraries, load addresses, file paths), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like lldb_symbols or lldb_examine_variables, nor does it specify scenarios where listing loaded images is appropriate (e.g., debugging memory issues, verifying library loads). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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