print

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions evaluating expressions and optional formatting, but fails to note potential side effects (e.g., if the expression includes function calls that modify state) or any destructive nature. The agent lacks information about whether this tool is safe or idempotent.

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 concise: two sentences plus a clear list of format options. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose. Every element is relevant, and there is no fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (indicating return values are documented elsewhere), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, it lacks mention of error handling (e.g., invalid expression), side effects, or confirmation of successful evaluation. The description is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains the 'expression' parameter as 'any GDB expression' and details the 'fmt' parameter with possible values and examples. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, the required 'session_id' parameter is not described, though it may be implicitly understood.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Print/evaluate a GDB expression' and references the GDB command 'print'/'p'. It identifies the specific resource (GDB expression) and action (print/evaluate), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'examine' or 'info_registers', which could be considered similar.

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 its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is unsuitable. For instance, it does not differentiate from 'examine' which also displays memory or expressions.

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