wf_debug_symbol

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the returned artifacts and a 'short change watch', which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It does not explain the watch mechanism, permissions, or side effects, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of outputs and zero filler. It is appropriately sized and structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly necessary, though the description lists outputs anyway. For a composite tool with many overlapping siblings, the definition remains incomplete on selection guidance and parameter detail, even with annotations and an output schema reducing the burden.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It loosely maps all three parameters: symbol is the variable, context_lines are the 'code excerpts around' write statements, and watch_ms is the 'short change watch'. It omits units, defaults, and precise semantics, adding moderate but incomplete value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: one-call debugging dossier for a variable, and enumerates the concrete artifacts returned. It does not explicitly contrast with overlapping siblings like ads_read, ads_symbol_info, or proj_references, but the composite scope is distinct enough for an agent to identify it.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. 'One-call debugging dossier' implies a debugging context, but with many overlapping siblings (ads_read, ads_symbol_info, proj_resolve_symbol, ads_watch) the description leaves tool selection entirely to inference.

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