select_thread

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

In the absence of annotations, the description adequately reveals the side-effect of switching the active thread for subsequent stack and variable commands. It could be enhanced by noting error cases like invalid thread IDs, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 remarkably concise with three focused sentences that each deliver essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description covers the key steps (identify thread ID, switch, implications for other commands). It lacks guidance on session_id, but the overall context is almost complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds some value by hinting at thread_id's origin via list_threads, but it does not explain session_id or provide constraints beyond the schema types. More explicit parameter guidance would improve this score.

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 verb 'switch to' and the resource 'a specific thread,' with an explicit reference to the GDB command. It distinctively sets the tool apart from siblings like list_threads (listing) and select_frame (frame selection).

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 advises using list_threads to find thread IDs and explains the effect on subsequent commands. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative methods.

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