edb_signal_handling

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

Annotations indicate destructive and mutable behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds context about query mode when action is empty, enhancing transparency without contradicting 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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words, earning a top score.

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 complexity (one nested parameter, output schema), the description covers the main behaviors and parameter details. However, it could be more complete by explaining the effects of each action or providing additional usage hints, but output schema compensates for return value details.

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 describes parameters signal and action with valid values. The description adds beyond schema by explaining the effect of an empty action (query mode) and lists all action options, providing extra semantic value despite schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Configure' and resource 'signal handling' for GDB/EDB. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its unique purpose, and includes the query behavior when action is empty, providing specific scope.

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 implicitly indicates usage for configuring signal handling and mentions query mode. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_send_signal, missing direct comparison or exclusions.

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