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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scope of data returned and, by framing it as an 'is it running' query, implies a read-only diagnostic, but it never confirms non-destructiveness, permissions required, or cost/latency for a potentially log-heavy call.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and then the payload contents. There is no preamble, no repetition, and every clause maps to a concrete returned signal.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned diagnostic fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide relevance. It stops short of covering prerequisites, permissions, or freshness/pagination of the log tail, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (project, env, with its production/staging/preview semantics) are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as default environment, required scoping, or accepted identifier formats, so the baseline 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 concrete action (debug/status) and resource (an environment) and enumerates exactly what the agent gets back: running state, restarts, OOM kills, memory/CPU, live release, and recent log errors. That enumeration distinguishes it in substance from siblings like env.list, env.restart, and env.exec, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'Debug' plus the list of diagnostic signals suggests calling it when an environment looks unhealthy, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. must the env exist, does it work on stopped envs), and no routing against alternatives such as logs.query or metrics.get.

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