edb_follow_fork

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool modifies state nondestructively. The description explains it sets a mode, which is appropriate, but does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., affecting current session behavior). The transparency is adequate but not enhanced 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It is complete for the task of selecting and using the tool, though it omits behavioral effects.

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 has one parameter 'mode' with enum values and a description. The description adds context by explaining the overall purpose (setting fork follow behavior), which clarifies the parameter's meaning. However, it does not explain the effect of each mode choice beyond what the enum suggests.

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 tool sets the debugger's fork follow mode, specifying the verb 'Set' and the resource 'follow parent or child process after a fork'. It is distinct from sibling tools like edb_attach_process or edb_continue, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to set 'parent' versus 'child' mode, or what prerequisites exist. The description only states the function without context for invocation.

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