edb_load_program

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it resolves symbols and prepares execution, providing positive behavioral context. No contradiction, but it could also mention that loading clears previous state.

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 with a clear first sentence summarizing the purpose, followed by detailed sections for parameters and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 it is the first step in debugging and the output schema likely describes the return, the description is adequate. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but the current detail is sufficient for an agent.

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 already provides descriptions for both 'path' and 'args' parameters. The description restates them in a structured 'Args' section, adding minimal new meaning. With schema description coverage apparently non-zero, baseline is 3.

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 loads an executable binary for debugging, resolves symbols, and prepares for execution. It identifies itself as the mandatory first step, distinguishing it from other debugging tools like edb_load_symbol_file.

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 explicitly says 'This is the mandatory first step for debugging a new binary,' which tells when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the context implies it is the starting point.

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