edb_disable_aslr

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context that it 'affects future runs', which is useful but does not disclose side effects beyond the 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?

Description is concise at about 60 words, front-loaded with purpose. The 'Equivalent to' sentence provides useful context. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 simple tool with one boolean parameter and a string output confirmation, the description covers core functionality and effect on future runs. However, it does not clarify scoping (e.g., session vs global) nor mention the return value format beyond 'Confirmation'.

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 schema already describes the 'disable' parameter as disabling or enabling ASLR. The description's parameter section adds no new information beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is effectively 100% for the description of 'disable'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool disables or enables ASLR for the debugee, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other debugger operations.

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?

Description mentions it is equivalent to a checkbox in DialogOptions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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