debug_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that it returns a limited subset (status, headers_subset, body_preview) and accepts path format variations. However, it does not disclose whether any authentication is required, potential side effects (though it's a GET), rate limits, or how headers are subset. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: opening with the core purpose and return shape, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting enhances readability. No wasted words.

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 low-complexity debug tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, return format, and parameter formats. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the description still previews the return shape. It could mention what headers_subset includes or typical usage scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds path format details ('/v1/...' or 'v1/...') and notes query is a dict of strings, optional. However, it does not explain what the query parameter is used for (e.g., appended to URL) or provide examples. The added value over the schema is moderate but incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool makes a GET request and returns a structured response with status, headers subset, and body preview. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools that are user/data query tools. The 'low-level debugging helper' positioning further differentiates its purpose.

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 phrase 'low-level debugging helper' implies a use case for raw HTTP inspection, which is useful context. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling high-level getters, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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