dbg_raw_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions running via DAP evaluate repl context but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., modifying debugger state, errors, or security implications). Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every part adds value.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the return format or error behavior. However, it does mention the operational context (DAP evaluate repl) and provides an example, making it minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds context about the command parameter via example but does not describe session_id. The mention of 'DAP evaluate repl context' gives some background but does not explain parameter semantics.

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 runs a raw gdb/lldb command via DAP evaluate repl context. It provides a specific example ('info registers') and distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it covers the 'long tail' that structured tools do not cover.

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 explicitly says 'Use for the long tail no structured tool covers', which guides the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies the alternative.

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