debug_docs_runtime_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning runtime/source information but fails to specify if the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The temporary nature is noted but insufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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 consists of two sentences that are clear and front-loaded. It is efficient but could potentially be more concise without losing meaning.

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 parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and context but lacks details on what exactly is returned or how to interpret the output. The temporary nature is highlighted, but completeness is moderate.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter with 0% coverage (no description). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, failing to add context about the 'user_google_email' parameter's role or usage.

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 returns runtime/source information for diagnosing stale MCP server instances, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only diagnostic tool focused on runtime verification.

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 description explicitly states its temporary diagnostic purpose and intent to verify which code checkout is loaded. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, though no sibling offers similar functionality.

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