Debug signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint false. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: which provider schemes it detects, the likely causes it diagnoses, and that a candidate secret can be tested without saving it.

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?

Two dense sentences with no wasted wording. The core debugging purpose comes first, followed by the saved-versus-candidate secret distinction.

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 read-only debugging tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the definition gives enough context to invoke it confidently. It could say more about the returned diagnostic format, but the listed failure causes cover the essential expectation.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that `secret` is a candidate tested without saving, but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: explains why a webhook signature verified or failed. It names provider schemes and concrete failure causes, which makes the tool clearly distinct from siblings like replay_event or compare_events.

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 troubleshooting context is clear: use this when a signature verified or failed and you need to know why. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the debugging purpose is strongly implied by the failure-cause list.

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