Capture Runtime Debug Snapshot

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the snapshot does not resume execution, is best-effort, and may include collection errors when an adapter cannot provide optional data. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance an agent needs.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and safety property, then gives usage guidance, names the alternative, and discloses best-effort behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a read-only snapshot tool with all-optional parameters, a rich schema, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, when to prefer a sibling, and return behavior. Even without an output schema, the description's mention of 'bounded evidence' plus collection errors is sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 100% parameter description coverage with detailed meanings, defaults, and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level semantic grouping like 'raw stack, locals, registers, exception details, modules, or nearby instructions,' but it does not meaningfully expand on individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Capture bounded evidence from the current stopped debug state without resuming execution.' It clearly distinguishes itself from debug_diagnose_stop by noting that the sibling additionally provides ranked crash hypotheses and project-frame selection, so an agent can select the right tool without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when an agent needs raw stack, locals, registers, exception details, modules, or nearby instructions.' It also names the alternative condition: 'prefer debug_diagnose_stop when you also want ranked crash hypotheses and project-frame selection.' This is clear, actionable routing guidance.

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