gdb_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description fails to disclose what status values are returned, whether the call is idempotent, performance characteristics, or side effects. It states the action but not behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb. However, extreme brevity limits completeness given the lack of output schema.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description should explain what status information is returned (e.g., execution state, stop reason). It fails to compensate for the missing structured return value documentation, leaving the agent unaware of what data to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters (empty schema), which establishes a baseline score of 4 according to the evaluation rules. No parameter documentation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status of the GDB session'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gdb_get_threads or gdb_get_registers which retrieve specific data rather than session state. However, it doesn't specify what 'status' means (e.g., running/stopped/connected).

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, or under what conditions it should be called (e.g., before/after execution commands). Given the numerous sibling tools for execution control (gdb_continue, gdb_step), explicit usage context is absent.

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