evaluate_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that 'Expressions may have side effects,' which is a crucial behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what happens on success or failure, whether the target remains stopped, or whether evaluation can change debugger state beyond the side-effects warning.

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 front-loads the action and includes a critical side-effect warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description fails to mention the return value, the meaning of stackLevel, or any error-handling behavior. For a debugging tool that can have side effects, this leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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, but it only indirectly references 'expression' and 'target.' It adds no meaning for the required targetId or the optional stackLevel parameter, leaving agents to infer their purpose from the schema alone.

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 ('Evaluate') and names the resource ('1C expression') plus the required condition ('in a stopped target'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling debugger tools such as get_local_variables and continue_or_step, which perform different operations.

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 phrase 'in a stopped target' implies the tool should only be used when the debugging target is suspended, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, nor does it name alternatives for evaluating expressions in other states or for read-only inspection (e.g., get_local_variables).

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