debug_get_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the output fields are mentioned, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, that an active session is required, or how errors are handled. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes only essential information: verb, resource, scope, and output content. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It lacks explicit mention of session lifecycle requirements and exact output structure, but the operation is simple enough that the definition is nearly complete.

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 fully documents session_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds a weak semantic link between the session and the debugged process, but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. No further compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('memory maps') and specifies the returned fields ('addresses, sizes, and permissions'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like debug_read_memory or debug_get_registers, making the tool's 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as debug_get_info or debug_read_memory, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an active debug session. Usage is only implied by the name and one-line purpose, which is minimal guidance.

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