connect_remote_debugger

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 explains the tool's purpose and port usage but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it blocks other operations, requires specific editor states, or handles connection errors). It doesn't contradict annotations, but more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific usage guidance in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (connecting to a debugger) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could improve by mentioning what happens after connection (e.g., how debug output is captured or if further steps are needed). It covers purpose and usage well but leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning port 6006/6007 use cases, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters.

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 specific action ('Connect to Godot editor's remote debugger') and the resource ('debug output in real-time'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'disconnect_remote_debugger' or 'get_debug_output' by focusing on establishing a live connection rather than retrieving stored data or disconnecting.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by specifying port options: 'Use port 6006 for script debugger (print/errors) or 6007 for live editor sync.' This helps differentiate use cases and suggests alternatives based on the type of debug output needed.

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