edb_get_process_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing specific properties included (PID, binary path, arguments, entry point, register state) and specifying the return type as a string. No contradiction 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 highly concise: two sentences plus a return type annotation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides essential details without unnecessary words.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (though simple), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and gives example properties. No missing information affects correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive properties of the debugged process', listing specific examples like PID, binary path, and register state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the comprehensive overview, contrasting with more specific tools like edb_get_registers.

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 mentions equivalence to EDB's ProcessProperties plugin, giving context. While it does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives, the 'comprehensive' nature implies it is the go-to for a full process overview. Implicit usage guidance is present, but explicit differentiation from siblings would improve it.

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