edb_configure_debugger

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by listing example settings (follow-fork-mode, ASLR, etc.) and indicating it modifies debugger state. However, it does not disclose potential consequences such as affecting execution or requiring permissions, beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise, well-formatted with clear sections (Args, Returns), and uses bullet points in the schema. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of a well-defined input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains query behavior and provides representative setting examples. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that changes take effect immediately, but this is implied by 'configure'.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters with examples and usage (e.g., 'empty to query'). The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema, adding no new meaning. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it configures GDB debugger settings and is equivalent to EDB's Configure Debugger dialog. It specifies the types of settings (follow-fork-mode, ASLR, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_execute_gdb_command.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it or any prerequisites. Sibling tools like edb_set_register or edb_set_breakpoint are for specific changes, but no differentiation is given.

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