edb_send_signal

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about signal numbers and examples, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential process interruption, response expectations, or error conditions, which are relevant for a destructive action.

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 two short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose, then examples, then parameter details. Every sentence contributes to clarity, though 'Equivalent to EDB's signal delivery mechanism' is slightly vague.

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 the simple tool (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. However, it lacks details about return value format, failure scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., process must be running). Annotations fill some gaps but not all.

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 provides a description for the 'signum' parameter ('Signal number to send...'), but the tool description reiterates it with examples and range (1-64). Coverage is stated as 0%, but schema description exists. The description adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 'Send a signal to the debugged process' specifying the verb 'send' and resource 'signal to debugged process'. It provides examples (SIGINT, SIGTERM) and distinguishes from siblings like edb_signal_handling by focusing on sending.

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?

Usage is implied through examples ('Can be used to send SIGINT to interrupt, SIGTERM for graceful shutdown'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No comparison with alternative sibling tools is provided.

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