switch_xxd

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior via 'Print' and specifies output format 'xxd-style', but omits safety details (what happens on invalid addresses), size limits, or whether this pauses target execution. Minimum viable disclosure for a debugging inspection tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb 'Print', zero redundancy. Every word earns its place: 'xxd-style' specifies format, 'memory' distinguishes from registers/variables, 'given address' links to required parameter.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter inspection tool with no output schema. Describes what the tool does and its format. Could be improved by noting address format (hex string expected) or confirming read-only nature, but sufficient for agent selection among debugging siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both 'address' and 'size' well-documented in the schema. Description mentions 'at the given address' which links to the parameter, but adds no semantic details beyond schema (e.g., address format expectations, hex vs decimal). Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb 'Print' with clear resource 'hex dump (xxd-style) of memory', distinguishing it from siblings like gdb_get_registers (registers) or switch_print_trace (execution trace). The 'xxd-style' qualifier and 'memory' scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations provided. However, the specificity of 'hex dump' and 'xxd-style' implies usage context (raw memory inspection vs. structured variables). Lacks guidance on when to prefer this over gdb_evaluate_expression for memory viewing.

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