deepseek_debug

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioural burden. It does disclose that the tool 'suggests' causes and fixes rather than applying them, and 'likely' conveys uncertainty. However, it does not mention limitations such as not executing code, not modifying files, or the nature of the output beyond a text suggestion.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The schema covers parameters well and the tool is conceptually simple, but the description omits sibling differentiation and does not state any behavioral constraints. An agent can infer basic invocation, but the lack of usage guidance and output expectations leaves some context incomplete.

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 all four parameters. The description adds minimal parameter context ('error message' maps to error, 'related code' maps to code), but it provides no additional semantic value beyond what the input schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyse') with a clear resource ('an error message and related code') and a clear outcome ('suggest likely causes and fixes'). It is not a tautology and conveys meaning, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deepseek_explain or deepseek_code_review.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this over deepseek_explain, deepseek_code_review, or other siblings. The phrasing implies it is for error scenarios, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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