debug.select_thread

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 fails to disclose side effects (e.g., state changes, idempotency, error handling on invalid thread_id). The brief text offers no behavioral insights beyond the action itself.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informational value; every sentence does not earn its place because it omits critical usage and behavior 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 single required parameter, no output schema, and the debug context, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'default thread' entails or how it affects other debug operations, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 already describes the parameter format ('hex e.g. 0x1a2b') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Set default thread for inspection' clearly states the verb (set), resource (default thread), and purpose (for inspection). It distinguishes from sibling tools like debug.list_threads (listing) and debug.attach (attaching), making its role 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 implies usage for inspection but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., after listing threads but before inspecting variables). No exclusions or context on prerequisites are provided.

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