gdb_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Start' implies an initialization action, it lacks details on what a GDB session entails, whether it's interactive or background, if it requires specific permissions or dependencies, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves process execution.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient for an agent to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 complexity of starting a debugging session (likely involving process execution and environment setup), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'session', what state it creates, or what the agent should expect as a result, leaving significant gaps for tool invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both optional parameters (gdbPath and workingDir). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining typical values or interactions between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Start') and target resource ('a new GDB session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdb_attach' or 'gdb_list_sessions' which also involve session management, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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. With siblings like 'gdb_attach' (attach to existing process) and 'gdb_list_sessions' (list sessions), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions for starting a new session versus other session-related operations.

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