peer_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., file stageing), or any required permissions. The only hint is the presence of an idempotency key, but its significance is not explained.

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 structured with clear guidance starting with 'Before calling', and each sentence serves a purpose. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by reducing repetitions (e.g., 'Pass complete diffs/logs' and later 'Full unified diff or patch output'). Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input side well but fails to explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the response. It does not address expected behavior after routing the request (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous, result format). This leaves the agent without a complete picture.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable emphasis on how parameters should be used (e.g., 'Pass complete diffs/logs — never prose summaries', 'Set task with goals, affected behavior...'), which goes beyond the schema by providing behavioral instructions that improve correct invocation.

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 is for routing a debugging request after failures, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_plan by specifying the context of debugging. The verb 'route' combined with 'debugging request' defines a specific action and resource.

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 tells the user when to use the tool ('after failures') and provides preparatory instructions ('Before calling: read relevant source files...'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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