edb_show_configuration

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these by stating 'Display' and 'query various settings'. It adds context about returning a string value and using GDB's `show` command, which is transparent. No contradictions.

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 three sentences plus an argument block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (parameter info appears both in text and schema), but it remains efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description is complete. It explains the behavior, parameter, and return value. The output schema exists but is not needed; description suffices. No gaps for the use case.

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 explicitly lists the 'setting' parameter with examples ('architecture', 'follow-fork-mode'), adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0% in context signals, but the description compensates fully by providing the parameter's purpose and examples.

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 'Display current debugger configuration settings' and explains it uses GDB's `show` command. This precisely identifies the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'edb_configure_debugger' which modifies settings.

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 implies usage context (querying a specific configuration setting) but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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