Debug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input and output but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs any analysis or side effects, what the 'solution' format is, or any rate limits or prerequisites. For a debugging tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, which is appropriate in length and front-loads the purpose. However, it is under-specified; conciseness should not come at the cost of essential context. It could benefit from a brief note on when to use it or what the solution contains, but as is, it is not verbose and gets a middle score.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered, but the description fails to provide any behavioral context, usage conditions, or parameter details. For a debugging tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect beyond a vague 'solution'.

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%, and the description only mentions 'error information' for the error parameter. It does not explain the auto_save parameter at all, nor does it clarify the expected format of the error string. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 states a clear purpose: troubleshoot problems by taking error information and returning a solution. It identifies the verb (排查/input) and resource (error→solution), which is specific enough. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_recommended_fixes or check_syntax, which might serve similar functions, so it loses a point.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'input error information, return solution' without mentioning scenarios where this is preferred over siblings like get_recommended_fixes, check_syntax, or search_code. There is no exclusion criteria or alternative reference.

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