edb_call_function

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that it calls a function in the debugged process, which may change state, and specifies the return value in EAX/RAX. No contradictions with annotations.

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 very concise: a single sentence for purpose, then bullet points for args and returns. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return value. It could add more on side effects or prerequisites (e.g., process must be paused), but is sufficient for most agents.

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 description explains the function_expr parameter with concrete examples ('printf("hello")', 'malloc(100)') and notes the return value. Although the schema already describes the parameter format, the description adds practical usage context.

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 verb 'call' and resource 'function in the debugged process', with a direct analogy to GDB's `call` command. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_evaluate_expression by specifying execution context.

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?

It provides explicit usage scenarios: 'useful for testing functions with specific arguments or calling library functions.' However, it does not include when-not-to-use or compare to alternatives like edb_evaluate_expression.

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