Debug Docs Runtime Info

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context beyond annotations by marking the tool as temporary and diagnostic, clarifying that it inspects runtime/source state rather than user data.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action and diagnostic purpose are front-loaded, and the temporary nature is stated concisely in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The only notable gap is the unexplained parameter semantics, which is partially mitigated by the clear parameter name.

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 needed to explain the required `user_google_email` parameter but does not. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify whose email is expected or how it is used for diagnosis.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return runtime/source information' and 'verify which code checkout the running MCP server has loaded.' It clearly distinguishes itself as a temporary diagnostic tool among the many operational Google Workspace sibling tools.

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 explicitly identifies the use case: 'diagnosing stale MCP server instances' and verifies which code checkout is loaded. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions, which are largely unnecessary given its unique diagnostic role.

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