debug_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'AUTO-call silently' behavior, which is a key trait not in the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'debug history' entails, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to understand without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and auto-call behavior but misses parameter details and behavioral traits. The output schema might help with return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective use, scoring it as minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It only implies 'query' through 'Search' and 'error_type' through 'on errors,' but doesn't explain 'project_directory,' 'tags,' or 'limit.' This insufficient coverage results in a low score, as most parameters remain undocumented.

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's purpose: 'Search debug history for past solutions.' It specifies the resource (debug history) and the action (search for solutions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'debug_record' or 'learning_session', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 clear usage context with 'AUTO-call silently on errors,' indicating it should be invoked automatically when errors occur. This gives explicit guidance on when to use it, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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