gdb-multiarch-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the internal operations performed (calls to get_pc, localize with $lr argument, and my_bt2) and precisely describes return values (PC offset, calling offset, full backtrace relative to main). Missing only error conditions or side effects.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first establishes the composite nature and constituent operations, second specifies return values. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the 'Combined trace' concept.

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?

No output schema exists, so description appropriately explains return values (offsets and backtrace). Given zero parameters and no annotations, the description successfully explains both the composed behavior and output format. Minor gap regarding error handling or GDB session requirements.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline of 4. No parameter documentation needed.

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?

States exactly what the tool does: a combined trace that runs get_pc, localize $lr, and my_bt2 in one command. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (switch_get_pc, switch_localize, switch_my_bt2) by positioning itself as a convenience wrapper that bundles them.

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?

Implies usage context by describing it as a 'Combined trace' that runs multiple operations 'in one command,' suggesting when to use it (when you need all three results together). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparison to calling the individual tools separately.

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