debug_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool operates 'silently' (implying no user notification) and is 'AUTO-call' (suggesting automated invocation), but doesn't describe what 'record' means operationally, whether data is persisted, what format is used, or any side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex input schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 concise with two brief sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence about 'AUTO-call' could be more clearly integrated with the first, and the overall brevity comes at the cost of completeness for such a parameter-rich tool.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, nested objects in the input schema, and an output schema exists, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose of the complex 'context' object, the meaning of parameters, or what the tool actually does beyond 'record'. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description should provide more operational context for proper tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (3 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'context', 'cause', 'solution', 'project_directory', or 'tags' represent or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Record debug solution' which indicates it logs debugging information, but it's vague about what exactly gets recorded and how. The phrase 'AUTO-call silently after fixing errors' adds context about usage timing but doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like debug_search or learning_session.

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 provides implied usage guidance with 'AUTO-call silently after fixing errors' which suggests this should be invoked automatically after error resolution, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like debug_search or when NOT to use it. No prerequisites or comparison to siblings is provided.

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