switch_get_pc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully clarifies the return value calculation (offset relative to main vs. absolute address), but fails to mention safety characteristics (read-only vs. destructive), error conditions, or return value formatting.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler content. The key information (action, target, and calculation method) is front-loaded.

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?

While the description explains what is returned conceptually, it lacks an output schema and does not specify the return format (e.g., hexadecimal string, integer, JSON object). For a debugging utility where format is critical, this omission leaves a significant gap.

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, which per the evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the current Program Counter (PC) and specifies the critical detail that it returns an offset relative to the base of main, distinguishing it from siblings like gdb_get_registers (which returns all registers) and switch_my_bt (which returns backtraces).

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 such as gdb_get_registers or switch_my_bt, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active debugging session or a stopped process.

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