dolphin_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Set a register' signals a mutation, but the description doesn't say whether it requires an active/paused debug session, whether it is reversible, or what happens on failure, and it never distinguishes read-only actions (scopes/variables/evaluate) from the write action (set).

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, though its compactness comes partly from omitting information the tool needs rather than from disciplined editing.

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 4-action, 7-parameter debugger tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It leaves the action-to-parameter mapping, the mutation semantics of 'set', and the distinction between scopes and variables entirely unresolved.

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 seven parameters exist. The description mentions only 'register' and 'expression' at a conceptual level and adds nothing about name, value, frameId, timeoutMs, or variablesReference, nor which parameters pair with which action. It fails to compensate for the total absence of schema documentation.

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 names three capabilities (inspect scopes/variables, set a register, evaluate a PPC expression) and the enum confirms four action values, so the general domain is clear and distinguishable from siblings like dolphin_memory or dolphin_stack. However, it never ties the verbs to the action enum values ('set' maps only loosely to 'set a register', and 'scopes' vs 'variables' are merged into one phrase), so an agent must guess which mode it is selecting.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over dolphin_memory, dolphin_stack, or dolphin_watch, and no indication of which action requires which parameters. The only implicit hint is that evaluation/setting concerns registers and expressions.

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