Correlate Source and Disassembly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explicitly states the tool does not resume the target and describes what it returns, including frame-selection reasoning, correlations, operand bindings, and best-effort collection errors. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences pack the core action, usage conditions, explicit alternative, side-effect guarantee, and return-value summary with no filler. The most differentiating information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool: it gives scope, use context, a sibling alternative, side-effect safety, and an outline of the return payload. Since an output schema exists, detailed return documentation is not required here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all six parameters. The description itself adds little parameter-level semantics, but that is acceptable because the schema carries the weight; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Correlate'), a precise resource set (source locations, disassembly, registers, pointer-like locals), and the frames involved (raw fault frame and first likely project-controlled frame). It explicitly distinguishes itself from debug_diagnose_stop, making the tool's niche clear.

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 second sentence states exactly when to use this tool ('when a crash is already stopped and instruction/operand provenance matters') and names the preferred alternative for broader ranked diagnosis ('prefer debug_diagnose_stop'). This is explicit routing guidance with both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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