get_debug_output

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

Description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the return object structure ({ output, errors, running, exitCode? }) and behavior (last `limit` lines from the end). 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence serves a purpose: first states function, second provides usage context and return info. Highly efficient.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage constraints, return structure, and edge cases (attached-mode). Nothing missing.

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 covers the single parameter 'limit' with description 'Max lines to return (default: 200, from end of output).' The description reiterates this but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get captured stdout/stderr from a spawned Godot project,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_project and attach_project by explaining the requirement for run_project mode.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever runtime tools fail unexpectedly' and specifies the prerequisite of run_project (not attach_project). It also mentions that attached-mode unavailability is reported gracefully, guiding the agent on when to use this tool.

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