edb_get_status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe read operation. Description adds that it returns a JSON status object and lists fields, providing some behavioral context beyond 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?

Two brief sentences plus a Returns line. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 no parameters, existing annotations, and the presence of an output schema (context indicates has output schema true), the description sufficiently explains return value format and content.

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?

No parameters to describe. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Get the current debugger and process status' and lists specific fields retrieved (loaded, running, paused, PID, RIP, current instruction, register count). It distinguishes from similar tools like edb_get_registers or edb_get_backtrace by focusing on overall status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_dump_state, edb_get_registers). The description implies it's for basic status, but doesn't contrast or provide exclusion criteria.

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