gdb_get_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify what thread information is returned (IDs, names, states), whether the operation is read-only/safe, or if the target must be paused. It does not describe the output format despite lacking an output schema.

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 extremely brief at six words with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though minimalism comes at the cost of completeness for a tool with rich sibling context.

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?

For a debugging tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits what thread attributes are returned (e.g., thread IDs, current thread marker, stack pointers) and lacks context about GDB session requirements that would aid an agent in successful invocation.

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, establishing a baseline score of 4. With no inputs to document and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('threads'), specifying the scope covers 'all' threads. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like gdb_select_thread (which manipulates thread selection state) or gdb_get_status (which may include thread state).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gdb_select_thread or gdb_get_backtrace. It does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an active debugging session or stopped inferior.

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