run_lldb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing potential blocking behavior, interaction with the debugger, failure modes, or how output is handled, leaving major behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Launches the LLDB debugger') and wastes no words.

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?

Despite a simple signature (two optional string params, no output schema), the description is too sparse for a debugger tool. It does not state whether it enters an interactive session, executes a single command in batch mode, or how arguments are applied, leaving important gaps.

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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by noting 'optional arguments', which is already inferable from the schema's required=0. It does not explain how 'args' and 'command' interact, so baseline 3 applies.

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 launches LLDB with optional arguments, using the verb 'Launches' and the resource 'LLDB debugger'. It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other tool targets LLDB, but it omits the separate 'command' parameter for executing a single command, slightly narrowing the full purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about debugging workflows, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over other project tools like build_project or run_tests.

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