debug_launch

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It does not say whether the debugger remains attached after launch, whether the target blocks until debug_close, how timeout_ms failure manifests, or what permissions/OS constraints apply to attaching to a process.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then appends the breakpoint spec syntax. No filler, though the semicolon splice makes the address-format note easy to miss as applying only to breakpoints.

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?

Five parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers at most one parameter and never states what a launch returns (PID? handle? session id?) that later tools would need. Inadequate for a stateful session-creating tool.

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%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does — the 'module:0xRVA' or '0xVA' syntax documents breakpoint address format, but exe, args, timeout_ms, and stop_at_entry are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb ('Launch') plus resource ('Windows target under the debugger') with the architecture variants (x64, WOW64 x86) spelled out. It implicitly separates itself from debug_continue/debug_close as the session-start tool, but never names those siblings to confirm the lifecycle relationship.

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 makes clear this is the entry point of a debug session, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives like run_and_dump or emulate, and no stated prerequisite that a session must be closed with debug_close.

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