send_debug

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

Annotations are minimal (only title). The description adds that the action is server-side and serves logging purposes, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it is safe, requires permissions, or has side effects beyond printing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without superfluous words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function and use case. It lacks information about return value or potential side effects, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description only says 'prints a message', which adds minimal information beyond the parameter name 'message'. It does not explain format, length limits, or valid values.

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 action ('prints a message server-side') and its utility ('marking the log or tracing'), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_console_command or run_lua by focusing on server-side logging.

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 implies usage for debugging or tracing ('useful for marking the log or tracing'), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor comparisons to alternative tools.

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