Diagnose Current Debug Stop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only' and 'without changing execution state.' It adds value by disclosing the return contract—bounded snapshot plus derived diagnosis—and that collection limitations are reported when optional debugger evidence is missing.

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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose, scoping condition, alternative, and return contract. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it behaves under missing evidence. Combined with exhaustive schema descriptions and safety annotations, little is left for an agent to infer.

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%, and all ten parameters have descriptive schema text, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds high-level context like project-frame selection and bounded evidence, but no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: diagnosing an already stopped live or postmortem debug session, and explicitly says it does so without changing execution state. It lists the diagnostic outputs and distinguishes itself from debug_snapshot, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 gives an explicit condition: use this when the debugger has captured the failure and you need derived diagnosis; use debug_snapshot when only raw evidence is needed. This names the alternative and the deciding factor, which fully satisfies the dimension.

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