edb_run

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it stops at the first breakpoint and returns a status string. Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior, but the description clarifies the stopping condition and return value.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences and a returns line. Every part is relevant and there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool has no parameters and the description covers the main behavior and return value. It could mention other stopping conditions (e.g., segfault), but for a simple run command it is fairly 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 input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining the action and return type, which is sufficient since there are no parameters to document.

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?

Description clearly states it starts execution from the beginning and stops at the first breakpoint. The verb 'Start execution' is specific and the resource 'loaded program' is implied. It distinguishes from similar tools like 'continue' (which resumes) and 'step' (which moves instruction-by-instruction).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied that it should be used after loading a program but lacks explicit guidance. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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