debugger_get_scope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does well: it discloses that nested objects/arrays are expanded, that `this` appears, and that any size-based omission is explicitly marked. This prevents an agent from incorrectly assuming truncated values are complete, which is valuable behavioral detail beyond the raw schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information: scope context, expansion behavior, `this` inclusion, and the omission guarantee. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus schema covers most of what an agent needs: what it reads, when it applies, and how results are represented. It could add a little more about what happens if the debugger is not paused, but it otherwise gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already covers all four parameters with meaningful descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about expanded objects but does not add specific parameter-level meaning; it correctly leaves parameter details to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('variables in scope at a paused call frame'), and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools by highlighting that objects and arrays are expanded rather than shown as 'Object' and that `this` is included. This lets an agent identify the right debugger inspection tool without comparing schemas.

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 intended context is explicit: this tool is for reading scoped variables while the debugger is paused at a call frame. It does not explicitly name alternatives like debugger_evaluate_at_frame, but the distinction is implied by focusing on scope inspection rather than expression evaluation, and no misleading guidance is present.

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