edb_list_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details about what information is shown (stop, print notification, passed to program), going 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?

The description is concise: three sentences plus args/returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds necessary detail without fluff.

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 listing tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and basic usage context. It lacks mention of prerequisites or scenarios, but given the annotations and output schema existence, it is adequately complete.

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 description redundantly restates the parameter from the schema ('signal: Specific signal to query (default: all)') but adds a return value description ('str: Signal list with handling info'). With schema coverage apparently 0% but schema having a description, the marginal value is limited; the return info provides some additional meaning.

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 lists signals and how GDB handles them, specifying it shows which signals cause stop, print notification, and are passed to the program. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_signal_handling which likely sets signal handling.

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 indicates it is equivalent to EDB's signal configuration view, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies other signal-related tools exist.

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