lldb_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Start a new LLDB debugging session' implies creation/mutation but doesn't disclose what happens during startup, whether it requires specific permissions or dependencies, what the session entails, or how it interacts with existing sessions. For a tool that likely initiates a complex debugging environment, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple startup operation and front-loads the essential information efficiently.

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 apparent complexity (starting a debugging session), the lack of annotations, and the existence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It states what the tool does but provides no context about behavior, parameters, or differentiation from similar tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 mentions no parameters at all. With 1 parameter (lldb_path) and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only the parameter name and type with no semantic context. The description doesn't compensate for this gap by explaining what lldb_path represents or when it should be provided versus using a default. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter.

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 resource ('a new LLDB debugging session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'debugger_start' or 'gdb_start' which appear to serve similar functions for different debuggers, leaving some 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 multiple sibling tools for different debuggers (LLDB, GDB, generic debugger) and related operations (command, list_sessions, terminate), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or differentiation from tools like 'debugger_start' which might serve a similar purpose.

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