SuperDev
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as debug_inspect and debug_capture_at both returning stack/scopes/variables, and preview_operation/preview_service_execution/preview_config_change all covering 'preview' but for different resources. The browser tools are distinct, but the debug and preview families blur boundaries, causing potential misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_services, upsert_service, browser_click). Even multi-word tools like browser_wait_for_selector and preview_config_change maintain a predictable verb-first structure across the entire set.
Tool Count1/5With 75 tools, the server is extremely over-sized. Even for a comprehensive development platform, this exceeds reasonable boundaries and most tools are narrowly scoped, making the surface unwieldy and difficult to navigate.
Completeness3/5The toolset covers an impressively broad domain including browser debugging, DAP, logs, services, configs, and pipelines. However, there are notable missing lifecycle operations: no delete_project, delete_service, delete_config, or delete_pipeline tools, leaving destructive operations incomplete.
Average 3.4/5 across 75 of 75 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 957 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'safe-operation flow', implying a gated or non-direct execution, but does not disclose what side effects occur, whether approval is required, or if changes are reversible. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to give meaningful behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices critical content, so it is concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It lacks information about return values, workflow steps, prerequisites, and the safe-operation mechanism.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 22%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level context. It does not compensate for undocumented parameters like project_id, root_path, or approval_token, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb and resource ('Apply a config upsert') but leaves 'config' ambiguous and doesn't distinguish from sibling upsert tools like upsert_project_config or upsert_project_pipeline. The 'safe-operation flow' phrase hints at a distinct mechanism but is undefined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus preview_config_change, direct upsert tools, or validation tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states the action ('type or fill') and does not reveal whether it replaces existing text, whether the element must be visible, or any side effects such as triggering input events. This lacks the context needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and front-loaded with the core action, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and two distinct behaviors ('type' vs 'fill'), making it more vague than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains neither the return value nor the difference between typing and filling. Sibling tools like browser_click and browser_press_key highlight that this tool's behavior is nuanced, and the description does not cover that nuance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only implies 'text' and 'element' without addressing session_id, selector format, or the 'fill' boolean. This leaves the agent reliant on parameter names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Type or fill text') and the resource ('an element in a browser debug session page'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_press_key. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative or differentiate itself from browser_select_option or browser_evaluate, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_press_key or browser_select_option. There is no mention of prerequisites, when typing is preferred over filling, or which scenarios call for the 'fill' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Create or edit' without explaining effects, idempotency, permissions, or what 'through the local agent' implies. It does not mention whether the operation overwrites existing config or how it relates to service/pipeline configs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. The phrase 'through the local agent' adds little clarity and could be misleading without further explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides minimal context about return values, side effects, or how to use the config structure, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (22%), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not compensate for the many undocumented parameters (project, root_path, project_id, etc.), leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's partial descriptions for service and pipeline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create or edit') and resource ('project base config'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like upsert_project_pipeline and upsert_service. However, 'base config' is somewhat vague and could be interpreted more explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_project_pipeline or upsert_service. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only restates the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., potential loss of page state, navigation behavior, impact on debug session) or how wait_until affects execution. No additional transparency is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description offers no parameter semantics, usage guidelines, or behavioral context. It fails to provide a complete picture for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The meaning of session_id is implied by context, and wait_until is left entirely unexplained, so the description adds no value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reload') and the target resource ('current page in a browser debug session'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deploy or rollback' but does not disclose side effects, approval requirements (despite approval_token and approval_wait_seconds parameters), blocking behavior, or that it skips build when artifact_version is set. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and complex behavior, so the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but it is not a mere tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 params, no output schema, no annotations), the one-line description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, approval flow, side effects, or how it interacts with artifacts and debug sessions. The schema partially covers some parameters but does not make the description complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (30%), so the description must compensate, but it does not. While the schema itself provides useful descriptions for host_ids, artifact_version, and approval_wait_seconds, the remaining 7 parameters are undocumented except for names, and the tool description adds no parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes a project-level pipeline deploy or rollback, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_project_pipeline and upsert_project_pipeline by focusing on execution, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The artifact_version parameter description hints at rollback/promotion use cases, but the tool description itself is silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds the fact that the output is a PNG screenshot from a browser debug session page, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any other behaviors such as session requirements, pagination, or what happens if the session is invalid. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It accurately summarizes the core action. However, it is slightly under-specified, as it misses parameter details that could be included concisely, so it does not achieve a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., file path, base64 image). It only states the format (PNG) but not the exact return structure. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as an active debug session. The annotation covers read-only safety, but other contextual information is lacking, making this incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not clarify what 'session_id' refers to or what 'full_page' controls. The only implicit hint is 'browser debug session page' in the description, which suggests session_id is the session identifier, but no meaning is provided for full_page. This is a significant gap in a tool with only two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Capture' and a clear resource 'a PNG screenshot from a browser debug session page', which makes the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'browser_snapshot', which could be confused with this screenshot tool, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_snapshot or browser_console_logs. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual cues or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'close', which matches the destructiveHint annotation. It adds no extra behavioral context such as irreversibility, impact on running processes, or cleanup side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description provides no value beyond what the annotation already indicates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for the action, but the lack of additional information trades simplicity for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimal but misses key contextual details: how to identify/obtain the session_id, and the fact that closing is destructive and likely irreversible. The presence of a similar sibling tool also warrants an explicit usage note. The description is under-specified for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the 'session_id' parameter, such as its format or how to obtain it. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to connect it to the act of closing a session or to mention that the ID likely comes from a session creation/list tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (close) and the target (browser debug session created by SuperDev). The term 'browser' distinguishes it from the sibling 'close_debug_session', though it does not explicitly call out that alternative. It is specific and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must exist) or contrast with alternatives like 'close_debug_session'. The description merely restates the tool's purpose without contextual 'when to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read-only nature, so the description adds minimal behavior beyond that. It mentions 'local' scope, but lacks details about ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior, which would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, though the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many related sibling tools, the description is too sparse to be complete. It leaves the agent guessing about filters, response format, and how this tool fits into the broader audit workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the six parameters (kind, limit, since, project_id, approval_id, project_name). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without meaning for any of the optional filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('local operation safety audit events'), which distinguishes it from similar tools like list_operation_approvals. However, 'local' and 'audit events' could be more specific, and it doesn't mention the tool's scope relative to siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as list_operation_approvals or get_operation_approval. The description simply states what it does without context on when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds approval-related behavior (wait for desktop approval by default, resume with one-time token) beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not explain what 'resolved deployment' means, whether the action is reversible, or what the actual consequences are.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, the phrase 'resolved deployment' is unclear and could be more precise, slightly detracting from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and only a destructive annotation, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify the target deployment (e.g., via service_id or deployment_id), what the return value is, or any prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 9 parameters, but it does not explain any of them. The only hint is 'one-time token,' which may relate to approval_token, but no parameter names or meanings are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Stop one resolved deployment,' indicating the tool stops a service/deployment. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_service and restart_service. However, 'resolved deployment' is vague, and there's a mismatch between the title ('Stop service') and the description ('deployment').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention start_service, restart_service, or diagnose_service. The only conditional guidance is about approval behavior, which is not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only implies mutation via 'Create or edit' but does not explain upsert semantics (e.g., whether it overwrites existing configurations), required permissions, idempotency, or return values. The schema descriptions cover parameter configuration but not tool execution behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant content, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the phrase 'through the local agent' is vague and does not add substantial clarity for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain effects on the system, return values, or relevant context such as how this fits into the pipeline lifecycle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'service' and 'pipeline' have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving most parameters unexplained. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, which the rubric requires for descriptions when coverage is below 50%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create or edit') and the resource ('one project-level pipeline'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_project_pipeline and validate_project_pipeline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_project_pipeline or deploy_project_pipeline. It only states what the tool does without explaining selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral nuances of 'deterministic' and 'without claiming root cause', which provide some extra context. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently written and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of substantive guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description fails to convey what the tool returns, how to filter results, or any usage context. The tool has 7 optional parameters, and the description provides no help in understanding its overall behavior or expected inputs/outputs, making it severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., limit, after_ms, trace_id). The mention of 'trace/request' hints at trace_id and request_id, but this is far too vague for an agent to understand how to populate or use these parameters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Collect deterministic trace/request log evidence' and adds a useful caveat about not claiming root cause. It is not a tautology and gives a reasonable idea of the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling log tools like search_logs or tail_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention appropriate contexts, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention what happens on success/failure, whether it waits for the element, or any side effects like navigation. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent guessing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the verb is front-loaded. However, it is borderline under-specified, which slightly reduces the score, but it remains appropriately short for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter info, the description should provide more context. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this click interacts with the browser debug session. The overall information is inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The agent must infer that 'selector' is a selector and 'session_id' identifies a debug session, but no format or examples are given. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('click') and a specific resource ('an element in a browser debug session page'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_type, browser_press_key, and browser_select_option. The action is unambiguous and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or when it should be avoided. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., thread remains paused until resumed), any required state (active debug session), or safety implications. The term 'pause' implies mutation of execution state, but this is not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, the jargon 'DAP escape hatch' is vague and costs clarity for agents unfamiliar with DAP, though it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling debug tools, the description is minimal. It does not explain prerequisites, return values, or how this tool fits into the debug workflow, leaving the agent to infer essential operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It references 'one thread' but does not tie this to the thread_id parameter or clarify deployment_id's role. The description adds no semantic value over the raw schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool pauses a specific thread for a deployment debug runtime, using the clear verb 'pause.' It distinguishes from sibling debug tools like debug_inspect and debug_continue by specifying the single-thread pause operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'low-level DAP escape hatch' implies usage when higher-level abstractions are insufficient, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like requiring an active debug session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or required permissions, so it provides minimal additional value beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without filler. It is appropriately concise for what it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It lacks information about required parameters, return format, or filtering behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining parameters, but it does not. It vaguely implies project-level scope but does not clarify the roles of project_id, pipeline_id, or project_name, nor which are required or how they affect results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (pipeline execution history) with a project-level scope. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_pipeline_artifacts or read_pipeline_run_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description solely states what it does without contextual selection cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true matches the 'Read' action, so there is no contradiction. The description adds scope context (stored logs, project-level run) but does not disclose pagination, filtering, or output behavior, which are left to the agent's inference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the one-line description is grossly insufficient. It fails to cover parameter meanings, return format, or when to choose this tool over many logging-related siblings, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. Required params pipeline_id and run_id are implied by the name, but limit, before, host_id, step_name, project_id, and project_name are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without essential guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'read' and the resource 'stored logs for one project-level pipeline run', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like tail_logs or search_logs. The scope is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tail_logs, follow_logs, or search_logs. The description neither states explicit use cases nor contrasts with other logging tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'serializable result' but omits important behaviors such as side effects of JavaScript execution, whether the page state may be mutated, or any permission or session requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes arbitrary code.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and result type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool executes arbitrary JavaScript and has no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention prerequisites (active debug session), side effects, serialization limitations, or what happens when results are not serializable. This leaves the agent underinformed for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain either parameter. 'expression' is only implicitly JavaScript, and 'session_id' is not described at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (evaluate JavaScript) and the target resource (browser debug session page), and specifies the outcome (return the serializable result). This distinguishes it from generic debug_evaluate or browser snapshot tools by emphasizing the browser debug session context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like debug_evaluate or browser_console_logs. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that selecting an option may cause side effects (e.g., triggering change events), whether it waits for the selection to take effect, or how errors are handled when the option does not exist. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary details. However, the brevity sacrifices essential information, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of required parameters, the expected return value, or possible failure modes. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the 'value' and 'label' parameters. It does not explain the 'session_id' or 'selector' parameters, nor does it specify that value and label are optional alternatives. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Select an option') and scopes it to 'browser debug session page'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type, which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_type or browser_click. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read operation, and the description's 'Read' wording is consistent. The description adds some context by specifying 'text snapshot' and 'browser debug session page', but it does not disclose output scale, potential side effects, or preconditions. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the core concept is simple, the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the text snapshot includes, how selector or size limits work, or what the return value looks like, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about session_id, selector, max_text, or max_elements, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('a text snapshot from a browser debug session page'). It distinguishes the tool from similar siblings like browser_screenshot, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_runtime_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_screenshot or browser_console_logs. The description provides only the basic function, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'step over' but does not explain side effects, such as advancing the program counter, requiring an active debug session, or that the thread must be paused. No mention of return values or state changes. The 'DAP escape hatch' label adds little behavioral clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' is somewhat redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and free of fluff. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-level debugging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the context is insufficient. It does not mention when this can be invoked (e.g., only during an active debug session or while a thread is paused), nor what the result or side effects are. Given the richness of sibling debug tools, more operational context is needed to guide correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters deployment_id or thread_id. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds zero value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage. An ideal description would explain the role of each parameter in the stepping operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'step over one paused thread' in a 'deployment debug runtime'. This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like debug_step_in and debug_step_out. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' hints at advanced usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_step_in, debug_step_out, or debug_continue. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., thread must be paused) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context without sufficient direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context that the data is a 'snapshot' from the 'local agent', but does not disclose return format, param behavior, or other operational details. This modest addition beyond annotations merits a mid-range score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words, front-loading the action and object. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and unannotated optional parameters, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It lacks information about parameter usage, return values, and how this snapshot relates to editing operations, making it incomplete for agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either root_path or project_id. Both parameters are optional, but their purpose and precedence are entirely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('editable project config snapshot') and source ('local agent'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like probe_project_config, which may also read config, limiting differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as probe_project_config or apply_config_change. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description's search operation aligns with that. The description adds the context of filtering by project or deployment, but does not disclose pagination behavior or query semantics, which is a meaningful gap beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded with the main verb. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, though it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many log-related siblings, yet the description does not explain query semantics, result structure, or pagination. This leaves an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'by project or deployment,' which relates to project_id/project_name and deployment_id, but leaves the required 'q' and pagination params (limit, cursor_id, cursor_time) completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Search SuperDev logs by project or deployment,' which clearly identifies the verb (search), resource (logs), and scope (by project or deployment). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like tail_logs or get_log_context, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer search_logs over tail_logs, follow_logs, or other log-reading tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read behavior, and the description does not contradict it. The 'DAP escape hatch' adds some context about low-level access, but it does not explain any other behavioral traits such as error conditions, required debug session state, or return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key qualifier. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description fails to indicate what the returned scopes look like. It also omits prerequisites such as an active debug session or a valid frame_id, and does not distinguish itself from numerous debug-related siblings. The tool appears to be part of a larger debugging workflow, but the description lacks enough context to use it independently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not describe either parameter. While the parameter names (deployment_id, frame_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning or format details, leaving the agent to infer their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('read') and the resource ('scopes for one stack frame'), and the 'DAP escape hatch' phrase distinguishes it from higher-level siblings. However, 'escape hatch' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about what scopes are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_variables or debug_stack_trace. The 'low-level' hint implies it's for advanced use, but it does not state exclusions or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the safe read-only nature, and the description adds the context of 'history' implying a retrospective list. It does not contradict the annotation, but it offers limited additional behavioral detail such as ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple listing purpose, the description should at least hint at what constitutes an artifact or how results are scoped/filtered. It does not address these details, leaving significant gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent must infer semantics from parameter names alone. The description references 'project-level' and 'pipeline' but does not clarify the distinction between project_id and project_name or the requirement of pipeline_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a list operation for pipeline artifact history at the project level, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipeline_runs and read_pipeline_run_logs. However, the phrase 'project-level' slightly conflicts with the schema requiring pipeline_id, creating minor ambiguity about the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pipeline_runs or read_pipeline_run_logs. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions operating on a paused thread but omits side effects (e.g., resuming execution until function return), error conditions, or required runtime state. The 'escape hatch' hint is the only additional behavioral context, which is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action ('step out') and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is too sparse given no annotations and no output schema. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (paused thread), behavioral effects (stepping out resumes execution), and parameter semantics. Sibling tools like debug_step_in likely have similar brevity, but this tool still needs more context to be safely used.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not define either parameter. It provides minimal context by referencing 'deployment debug runtime' and 'paused thread', implying deployment_id and thread_id, but fails to explain their formats, roles, or relationships. The description adds little value over the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('step out') and the resource ('one paused thread in a deployment debug runtime'), which distinguishes it from sibling stepping tools like debug_step_in and debug_step_over. The phrase 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' adds specificity about the intended use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description labels it as a 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' but does not contrast it with alternatives, explain prerequisites (e.g., thread must be paused), or indicate scenarios where stepping out is preferred over stepping over or in.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds context that the records are 'local' and from the 'SuperDev agent', but does not disclose return format, pagination, or filtering behavior beyond what annotations suggest. This is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose clearly and efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks information about what fields are returned or how to interpret results. The description is too thin for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, even if simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, status, project_id, project_name). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is a significant gap given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('local diagnostic session records') and source ('the SuperDev agent'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_debug_browsers and list_code_debug_targets by focusing on session records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does. For a list tool, this is a lack of usage context, though not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the 'pending or historical' scoping, which clarifies the kind of data returned, but does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior beyond status, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single, clearly worded sentence that immediately conveys the core function. There is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent. It omits parameter meanings, expected response structure, and any usage caveats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, status, project_id, project_name). This leaves parameter semantics entirely to the schema's bare field names, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists operation approval requests, specifying both pending and historical scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_operation_approval (single) and list_operation_audit (audit trail).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_operation_audit or get_operation_approval. The description lacks any exclusions or conditions for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that breakpoints are replaced wholesale, that an empty array clears all breakpoints, or any side effects or required session state. The 'escape hatch' label signals low-level behavior but does not explain specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, densely informative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-level DAP tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial operational context such as whether a debug session must already exist, how breakpoints are applied (replace vs. append), and what results the caller can expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%); only 'lines' has an explicit schema description. The tool description does not clarify the meaning of 'deployment_id' or 'source', though 'deployment debug runtime' gives some context. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('source breakpoints for a deployment debug runtime'), making the tool's primary function immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling debug tools by focusing specifically on breakpoint manipulation, not inspection or stepping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_capture_at or debug_evaluate. The phrase 'low-level DAP escape hatch' hints at advanced use, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or what higher-level tools might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only mentions 'local ... only' and does not disclose possible side effects such as overwriting existing templates, permission requirements, use of approval_token, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded, 14-word sentence that clearly states the core action. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices depth in favor of brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutating operation with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and operational context, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description offers no explanation of the three parameters: path, approval_token, and debug_session_id. The agent is left with no guidance on what values to provide or when they are relevant, which is critical for a tool with a required path and optional security/debug params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'import' and clearly names the resource ('pipeline template file') and destination ('local agent template library only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as deploy_project_pipeline or preview_pipeline_template, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The qualifiers 'local' and 'only' provide clear contextual boundaries, implying this tool is for local template import only and not for deployment or remote operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or elaborate on when to prefer this over related pipeline tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'without writing config.' It adds 'through the local agent' but doesn't explain what probing entails (e.g., file traversal, env detection). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the annotation, but there is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is one sentence that states the action and constraint without redundant words. It is easily parsed and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the probe returns or what information is gathered. It only says 'probe a project directory,' leaving the outcome ambiguous. For a tool with two parameter names and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate for full autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The names 'root_path' and 'project_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics about how they are used or whether they're optional. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'probe' with 'project directory' as the resource, and qualifies with 'without writing config' to signal read-only inspection. While 'probe' is somewhat vague, it clearly distinguishes this from config-writing siblings like apply_config_change/upsert_project_config. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project_config, but the purpose is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without writing config' implies a safe read-only use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_project_config or validate_project_pipeline. No exclusions or alternatives are named. The usage is implied from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently says 'Read', so there is no contradiction. The description adds context about the source ('browser debug session page') but doesn't disclose recency limits or whether reading consumes the logs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant details. It efficiently states the action, object, and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it doesn't. It also doesn't clarify that session_id refers to an active debug session or how 'recent' is interpreted, leaving the agent to infer critical operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (session_id, level, limit). The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the names and types in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recent console logs') with a clear scope ('captured from a browser debug session page'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like browser_network_requests or tail_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you need console logs from a browser debug session), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like tail_logs or search_logs. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral trait of waiting until a state is reached, but does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether it polls, or any side effects. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description must provide enough context for the agent. It provides minimal information: it waits for a selector state, but does not explain the states (even though they are in an enum), the timeout behavior, or the session requirement. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with four parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no explanation of the parameters (state, selector, session_id, timeout_ms) or their meanings. The description mentions 'selector' and 'state' but does not elaborate beyond the parameter names, adding no value to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: waiting for a selector to reach a requested state in a browser debug session. The verb 'wait' and resource 'selector' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_snapshot which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (browser debug session, waiting for state) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. A clear purpose provides some implied guidance, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (continue a paused thread) and implies a precondition (paused), but does not disclose consequences such as the thread running until the next breakpoint, potential side effects on the debug session, or what happens if the thread is not paused. The 'escape hatch' label suggests low-level behavior but remains vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 13-word sentence that is thematically front-loaded with 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' to set context. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and scope without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter explanation. The description covers the core action but omits expected return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances of a low-level DAP command. Given the complexity of debug runtimes, the description is not sufficient for an agent to fully understand the implications of invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides only implicit references to parameters via 'one paused thread' (thread_id) and 'deployment debug runtime' (deployment_id). It does not explicitly explain the meaning or format of either parameter, leaving the agent to infer that deployment_id identifies the deployment and thread_id the thread. This is insufficient given the schema's sparse documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('continue') on a specific resource ('one paused thread for a deployment debug runtime'), which distinguishes it from sibling stepping tools like debug_step_in/out/over and debug_pause. It explicitly identifies the scope and the low-level nature, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' implies this is for advanced use when finer-grained control is needed, and 'for a deployment debug runtime' scopes it to deployment debug contexts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stepping vs continue) and does not mention exclusions or fallback options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two important behaviors: it is 'approval-gated' and 'expression-level audited,' which informs the user of approval requirements and auditing. However, it does not warn about potential side effects of evaluating arbitrary expressions in the debuggee, nor does it describe error handling or return behavior. More detail would be needed for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loads the key qualifier ('Low-level DAP escape hatch') before stating the action. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only two sentences. It lacks crucial context such as side effects, return format, approval process details, or how this compares to close siblings like browser_evaluate. For a low-level evaluation tool, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the five parameters (deployment_id, expression, frame_id, approval_token, approval_wait_seconds). It only hints at approval and audit concepts without connecting them to specific parameters. With zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'evaluate an expression inside the debuggee.' It also positions itself as a 'low-level DAP escape hatch,' distinguishing it from higher-level sibling tools like debug_variables and debug_inspect. The verb 'evaluate' and resource 'debuggee' make the purpose explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'low-level DAP escape hatch' implies use when high-level debug tools are insufficient, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that this is local ('from the local SuperDev agent') and includes 'deployment runtime state', which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose filtering behavior, return format, or other operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key information and is appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool, the description provides the core purpose but omits parameter usage and return-value details. No output schema exists, so the description could have briefly explained what 'runtime state' includes or how parameters filter, but it's not severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention project_id or project_name. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description doesn't clarify whether they filter services or how they interact (e.g., precedence, mutually exclusive).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource ('services and deployment runtime state'), making the tool's function obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_projects by focusing on services and runtime state, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use (when service deployment state is needed), but there's no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_runtime_snapshot or list_projects could overlap, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the browser is isolated and that CDP endpoints are returned, providing some clarity. However, it omits crucial details such as session lifecycle, requirement for approval tokens, or whether resources need cleanup via close_debug_session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and clearly states the purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain parameter semantics, the meaning of CDP endpoints for downstream use, or the need to close the session. Complex behavior and side effects are left unaddressed, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters. While 'local frontend deployment' hints at deployment_id, features like browser_id, viewport dimensions, open_devtools, and approval_token are entirely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Open') and identifies both the resource ('local frontend deployment') and the outcome ('return CDP WebSocket endpoints'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like close_debug_session or browser_navigate by focusing on creating an isolated browser session for debugging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for debugging local frontend deployments in isolation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as create_debug_session or list_browser_targets. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'without writing YAML' which gives some context about side effects, but it doesn't explain what the preview actually returns, whether it validates, or how it differs from a real upsert in behavior. Given the annotation, the bar is lower, and the small extra context earns a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero waste, and it is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and only 22% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not describe the preview result format, dependencies between parameters, or when to provide approval_token or debug_session_id. The tool is more complex than the description addresses.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter information. Schema description coverage is only 22%, and while the pipeline and service properties have detailed inline descriptions, the tool description itself does not compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like kind, root_path, project_id, and approval_token are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions for most.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Preview a project/service/project-pipeline config upsert without writing YAML.' This uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('config upsert'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_config_change or upsert_project_config by emphasizing that it does not write YAML.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using it before applying changes or that it is the safe counterpart to apply/upsert tools. No explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notably reveals that the operation is non-mutating ('does not change runtime state or configuration' and 'local'), which is valuable. However, it omits details like whether an active session is required, how 'local' persists, or any side effects on session history.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and an important constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters (4 required), enums for type and actor, a nested data object, and no output schema. The description fails to explain the meaning of the parameters, how they interact, or what the appended note looks like. It is far too minimal for the tool's complexity and leaves major gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains none of them. There is no mention of session_id, type, actor, summary, or data, nor their enumerations or semantics. The tool name hints at a note, but the description adds virtually no parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Append') and resource ('a local diagnostic note or observation'), and the qualifier 'only' distinguishes it from state-changing debug tools. This is specific enough to differentiate it from siblings like apply_config_change or set_debug_breakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for local diagnostic notes and explicitly states it does not change runtime state or configuration, implying when to use (for logging) and when not (for mutations). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a key trait: it only closes a local diagnostic session record and does not alter runtime state or configuration. However, it lacks details about what 'close' means in terms of side effects, reversibility, or requirements for session existence, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that immediately states the action and its non-effect on runtime. It has no fluff or unnecessary clauses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and key restriction for this simple tool, but it does not explain the operational consequences of closing a session (e.g., whether notes can still be appended, if it's reversible, or if a session must exist). Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more context would round out the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention or explain any parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by adding meaning to session_id or summary. It relies entirely on the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Close a local diagnostic session record only', providing a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from runtime state changes, positioning it apart from sibling close_browser_debug_session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions, but the phrase 'does not change runtime state or configuration' implies it is for record management only, providing some context. No explicit alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds 'low-level DAP escape hatch' to indicate raw access, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether an active debug session is required or whether it returns raw DAP data. This is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose and context. Every word adds value, with no filler that would dilute the message.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and zero param descriptions, the description should mention prerequisites like an active debug session or the return format. It implies raw DAP via 'escape hatch' but does not explicitly state it. Given the low complexity, it is borderline sufficient but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain deployment_id or thread_id beyond the overall purpose. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description offers no format, source, or constraints, forcing the agent to infer their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action 'read stack frames' and the resource 'deployment debug runtime'. It uses 'DAP escape hatch' to signal a low-level, distinct operation compared to sibling debug tools like debug_inspect or debug_scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers only a vague implication 'low-level DAP escape hatch' that it is for special scenarios, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned, so an agent receives little guidance on choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses a key behavioral trait: it is non-mutating and creates only a local record. This gives the agent confidence that runtime state is unaffected, though it does not mention return values or persistence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a safety guarantee.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves the function of parameters and the lifecycle of the session record unexplained, making it incomplete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of any of the 8 parameters, not even the required title and question. The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide, making parameter selection a guessing game.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('local diagnostic session record'), and distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it only creates a record and does not change runtime state. This differentiates it from tools like apply_config_change or debug_inspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating a diagnostic session record without side effects, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives despite a large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the approval waiting behavior and one-time token resume, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or prerequisites for a 'resolved' deployment, leaving gaps for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are direct and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys the primary behavior and the approval nuance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 optional-looking parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to know which parameters are required to identify the deployment and how approval actually works in practice. The term 'resolved deployment' is ambiguous without referencing a prior resolution step or parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not map any of them to their roles. It only vaguely references 'approval' and 'one-time token', which could relate to approval_token and approval_wait_seconds, but does not explicitly explain any parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the target ('one resolved deployment'), which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like stop_service and restart_service. It also adds the nuance of 'resolved', implying a specific deployment already identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for starting a service and provides context about approval handling, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like restart_service or preview_service_execution, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The approval guidance is useful but not a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 implies a mutation (create/edit) but does not warn about side effects, approval requirements, idempotency, or what the response contains. The mention of 'through the local agent' is vague and does not clarify potential impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and provides a focused conditional note, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with nested objects (service, pipeline) and 8 parameters, yet the description provides only minimal context. The detailed pipeline precedence and role rules appear in the schema, not the description, and the tool does not explain expected return values or overall workflow. Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the tool description adds little beyond the schema. It only mentions setting service.language, while many other parameters (project, root_path, approval_token, etc.) remain undocumented in both description and schema. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create or edit one service and its deployments.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upsert_project_pipeline or upsert_project_config, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (when creating/editing a service) and includes a conditional usage hint about setting service.language. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior. It provides meaningful context: it's a low-level DAP escape hatch, requires a paused thread, and targets a specific deployment debug runtime. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., advancing execution), prerequisites like an active debug session, or error behavior, so it is only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the most important qualifier ('Low-level DAP escape hatch') and then states the action and scope. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not mention prerequisites like an existing debug session, how the step interacts with the broader debug flow, or what the outcome/return indicates. Given the complexity of the debug tool context, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains deployment_id and thread_id via 'deployment debug runtime' and 'one paused thread', but it does not detail how to obtain or validate these values, nor explain the integer format of thread_id. The names are relatively self-explanatory, but the description adds only minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('step into') and identifies a clear resource ('one paused thread in a deployment debug runtime'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like debug_step_over and debug_step_out by explicitly focusing on stepping into a thread, and the 'low-level DAP escape hatch' framing adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to step into a paused thread during debugging, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., debug_step_over, debug_step_out) or exclude cases. The 'low-level escape hatch' hint gives some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns summaries (not raw request data) and is limited to recent requests captured from a debug session. However, it does not disclose details about output structure, pagination, or any rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and to the point, containing no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the meaning of limit and filter, nor what exactly constitutes a 'summary', leaving an agent without sufficient understanding of the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description mentions 'browser debug session page' which implies session_id but provides no explanation for the limit and filter parameters. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as reading network request summaries from a browser debug session, using the specific verb 'Read' and distinct resource ('network request summaries') that separates it from sibling tools like browser_console_logs and browser_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context (from a browser debug session page, recent requests) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is enough for most usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (pressing a key) and the optional focusing step, but does not mention side effects, modifier keys, or whether keydown/keyup events are sent. Basic transparency but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the optional focusing behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action with no output schema and 3 straightforward parameters, the description is largely adequate. It covers the primary behavior and an optional precondition. Lacks explicit behavior on success/failure, but these are not critical for a key press tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'key' and 'selector' ('focusing a selector'), but does not explicitly define parameters or mention session_id at all. The description adds minimal value beyond property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Press') with a clear resource ('keyboard key') and context ('browser debug session'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on key events rather than clicks or typing. The optional selector focusing is an additional helpful detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage in a browser debug session and mentions optional selector focusing, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like browser_type or browser_click. No clear exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the core action (stopping at a source line and returning data) and flags it as last resort, but it does not disclose side effects like pausing the deployment, approval requirements (despite approval_token in schema), or timeout behavior. The 'stop' implies a pause, but state-change implications are vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first packs purpose and behavior, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits return format, approval workflow, side effects, and parameter rationale. The presence of many sibling debug tools further demands more contextual detail to guide selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 11%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It mentions stack/scopes/variables but does not connect them to parameters like variable_names, max_variables, or thread_id. The description fails to compensate for the under-documented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it is a 'last-resort code debug for a deployment' that stops at a source line and returns stack/scopes/variables in one call. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing the combined one-call nature and last-resort positioning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to 'Use logs and diagnose tools first,' providing clear context for when not to use this tool. However, it does not name specific alternative tools among the extensive sibling list, so usage differentiation is not fully fleshed out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool polls logs (rather than streaming) and is bounded in duration, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also indicates logs are 'recent', implying a time constraint. The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds further useful behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes: it specifies the action (poll), the resource (recent deployment logs), the constraint (bounded duration), and the use case (short tail -f style observation). No unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has high complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions) but the description only provides a high-level behavior. It does not clarify how the many optional parameters relate to each other, what the output format is, or any usage caveats. Given the low schema/annotation richness, the description should carry more of the burden, but it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 14 parameters, none of which are described in the input schema or the tool description. The description only mentions 'recent deployment logs' but provides no details on how parameters like deployment_id, project_id, limit, or duration_ms affect behavior. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool polls recent deployment logs for a bounded duration, using the specific verb 'poll' and identifying the resource as deployment logs. It also differentiates itself from alternatives by describing it as 'short tail -f style observation', which distinguishes it from other log-related tools like tail_logs or search_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'use for short tail -f style observation'. This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it retrieves events in addition to the session, but does not disclose any behaviors like pagination, limits, or error conditions. The read-only nature is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No word is wasted, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool (2 params, no output schema, readOnlyHint annotation). The description covers the essential purpose and return scope ('session and its events'), which is sufficient for a basic read. It lacks explicit mention of the 'limit' parameter and return format, but given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description must compensate for both parameters (session_id and limit). The description implies session_id identifies the session but says nothing about 'limit', leaving it unclear whether it caps events or something else. This is minimal compensation; more parameter detail would be expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('one local diagnostic session and its events'). It differentiates from siblings like list_debug_sessions (which would retrieve multiple sessions) and create/close_debug_session (which are mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it is for reading a single session. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling list shows many related debug tools, but the description gives no direct comparison, relying instead on the implied scope of 'one'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Fetch' aligns with this. The description adds the scoping behavior (by project or deployment) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or rate limits, which are not covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, containing no redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the main idea.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description is too terse. It fails to explain most parameters, the expected return value, or any conditions/prerequisites. Sibling tools like search_logs or tail_logs have more context, and this tool's unique capabilities are under-described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description only hints at 'project or deployment' scoping, but fails to explain the required 'id' parameter, time-based parameters (after_ms, before_ms), or 'limit'. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Fetch log context') and the resource ('around one log entry'), with scoping by project or deployment. This distinguishes it from sibling logging tools like search_logs or tail_logs, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when needing surrounding log context for a specific entry, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when/why not' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already flags the action as destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the approval process, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with the main action front-loaded. Both sentences are relevant and add necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what constitutes a 'resolved deployment', which parameters are required, or how the identifiers interrelate. It also does not describe the outcome or effects beyond the approval wait, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only indirectly references approval_token and approval_wait_seconds via the approval flow. It does not explain the other parameters (e.g., project_id, service_id, deployment_id) or their relationships, leaving most parameters underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart') and the resource ('one resolved deployment'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_service and stop_service. The approval mention adds clarifying context without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context about the approval flow (wait for desktop approval, then resume with a token) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the verb 'restart', but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds specificity by noting the pipeline must be 'already saved' and that validation does not involve execution. This goes beyond the generic read-only flag and provides meaningful context about prerequisites and non-mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what validation returns, the role of optional parameters, or any validation behavior beyond 'without executing.' Given the complexity and lack of schema descriptions, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention any parameter, required or optional. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what parameters like pipeline_id, env_name, variables, or service_names mean. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Validate') and the resource ('an already saved project-level pipeline'), and distinguishes it from execution by adding 'without executing it.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like deploy_project_pipeline and preview_pipeline_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: to validate a saved pipeline without execution. It explicitly excludes execution, but does not name alternative tools for when execution is needed. This provides clear context without explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping constraint of looking up by ID or name, but does not disclose what is returned (e.g., full project object) or error behavior on not found. It provides minimal additional context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence ('Return one SuperDev project by ID or name.') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides sufficient context for a basic get-by-identifier operation. It lacks output schema and does not mention return format or error behavior, but for a read-only simple getter, the description is reasonably complete and consistent with the annotation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description clarifies that project_id and project_name serve as lookup keys. However, it does not specify that exactly one is required, whether they are mutually exclusive, or what happens if both are provided, leaving some ambiguity for a schema with zero required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a single SuperDev project by ID or name, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('SuperDev project'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_projects (which lists all projects) and get_project_config (which retrieves configuration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have an identifier (ID or name) and need a project, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. No reference to sibling tools like list_projects or get_project_config is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates no side effects, and the description adds 'dry-run parse and validate,' which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid YAML or what the validation response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, dense sentence of 10 words that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two optional parameters and a readOnly annotation, so the description captures the core purpose and input types. The lack of an output schema means the description could mention the return value (validation results/errors), but for such a simple tool the gap is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions for 'path' or 'yaml,' but the description mentions 'YAML string or file,' which helps map those parameters. It does not clarify precedence when both are provided or expected formats beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase 'Dry-run parse and validate' and identifies the resource as 'pipeline template YAML string or file.' This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent sibling tools like 'import_pipeline_template' or 'preview_operation' which involve other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for pre-flight validation of a pipeline template, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like 'validate_project_pipeline' or 'preview_config_change.' There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the result is a draft to be validated, implying a non-authoritative output. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits like return format or handling of invalid inputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a practical instruction. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and a hint at usage, but it doesn't explain the output structure or address all parameters. It is adequate but not rich, especially considering the dense sibling toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions project_root and cwd, giving them some context, but the required 'language' parameter is omitted. This leaves a notable gap for a required input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Suggest schema-shaped runtime config for a language service from project_root and cwd.' It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('runtime config'), and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like validate_service_runtime and describe_language_runtime_schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides usage context by advising to 'Use the result as a draft, then validate it,' which implies a workflow and points toward validation as a next step. It doesn't explicitly name the validation tool but gives clear guidance on when to use the suggestion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states 'it does not change runtime state or configuration' and 'local diagnostic record only', which are critical safety traits. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error conditions, whether a session must exist, or response format, so not a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, determinism, and non-mutating nature without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers purpose and safety but leaves out operational context needed for correct invocation, such as parameter semantics, expected output, or when to choose this over similar tools. This makes it insufficient for an agent to fully exploit the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-specific meaning. It mentions 'log analysis' but does not explain what analysis_type values (trace, error_window) mean or what the 13 parameters (session_id, from, to, limit, etc.) represent. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Run deterministic log analysis and append the result as a local diagnostic record only.' It specifies both the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting it is non-mutating and local-only, setting it apart from other analysis tools like analyze_trace_logs or append_debug_session_note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: run deterministic log analysis and append the result to a debug session, with the caveat of being non-mutating. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read, but the description adds valuable context: it is a low-level DAP escape hatch and that secret-looking values are redacted by the agent. This goes beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key behavioral note. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two parameters and an annotation, the description covers the core purpose and a key redaction behavior. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., where variables_reference comes from) but is largely sufficient for an escape hatch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a hint that variables_reference corresponds to 'one scope', but does not explain deployment_id or the relationship between parameters. The description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'read variables for one scope' with 'read' as the verb and 'variables' as the resource. The phrase 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' distinguishes it from higher-level debug tools like debug_scopes or debug_evaluate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use as an escape hatch for direct DAP access, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating that the tool collects 'recent' log evidence (implying a recency limit) and that it does not attempt root-cause analysis. This gives the agent important expectations about the tool's output depth. However, it leaves out details about approval_token, debug_session_id, or how the tool interacts with debug sessions, which might affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the action, scope, and a key limitation. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably sparse. It lacks details about return values, how to select the specific deployment, and how this tool relates to the many diagnostic siblings. The absence of output schema means the description should at least hint at what the collected evidence looks like, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not mention or explain any of the 9 parameters. It says 'for one deployment' but never maps that to deployment_id or clarifies the roles of env_name, project_id, service_id, etc. The agent has little guidance on how to construct a valid invocation or how parameters relate to the intended operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to collect runtime status and recent log evidence for one deployment. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from other diagnostic tools by adding 'without claiming root cause', which differentiates it from analysis-oriented siblings like analyze_trace_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need raw evidence (runtime status and logs) without aiming for a root-cause conclusion. The phrase 'without claiming root cause' serves as a built-in exclusion, implying alternatives like analyze_trace_logs would be used when root-cause analysis is desired. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tools or provide a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use matrix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description matches with 'Read'. It adds behavioral context about returning a one-time token when approved, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose behavior when the approval is not approved or whether the token is one-time in the sense of being invalidated after use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, directly stating the action and the conditional output. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core behavior but omits what occurs when the approval is not approved (e.g., empty response, error). It also does not mention token invalidation specifics. This leaves a notable gap in the return contract, but overall it is usable for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly describe the 'approval_id' parameter. Yet the parameter name is self-explanatory, and the phrase 'Read one operation approval' implies the ID is the identifier. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema field name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource 'operation approval', clearly distinguishing this single-get tool from the sibling list_operation_approvals. It also specifies the outcome — returns a one-time token when approved — making the purpose explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for reading a single approval and receiving a token if approved, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not contrast with related tools like list_operation_approvals or suggest contexts where this should be called.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: that certain fields are canonical remote host_ids and name is display-only. This helps the agent correctly use the returned data and avoids misinterpreting display names as IDs. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, and each clause adds value. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential data-interpretation guidance. It earns a top score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and how to interpret key fields. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but those are likely unnecessary for a zero-parameter list tool. The description adequately covers the essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (schema specifies no properties). Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host selection records'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other entity types. The phrase 'host selection records' is slightly jargon-heavy, but it aligns with the tool name and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the verb 'Return' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It does offer guidance on how to interpret returned fields ('Use non-self host id fields as canonical remote host_ids values; name is display-only'), which supports correct use after selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only. The description adds the scoping to 'with runtime providers' and the usage timing, but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as sorting, filtering, or return format. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, and this meets it without being rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is complete: it says what it returns and when to use it. It could mention that the returned data consists of language names or provider identifiers, but the sibling context and title make this inferable. Overall, adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. Baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't add misleading info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return languages with runtime providers.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like suggest_service_runtime or describe_language_runtime_schema, though the 'list' and 'providers' wording makes it distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'Use before creating a language service so you can choose a supported provider.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it creates a plan rather than performing the operation. It adds the behavioral detail that the plan is 'deterministic' and that no approval request is created. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the tool's side-effect-free nature, though it doesn't describe output format or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action ('Create a deterministic safety preflight plan') and includes essential qualifiers ('for one write operation', 'without creating an approval request'). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity—12 parameters, 6 distinct operation types, and no output schema—the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain what a 'safety preflight plan' contains, how to interpret it, or what parameters are required for different 'kind' values. This leaves the agent to guess at appropriate parameter selection and expected return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. The schema provides names and types, but the description offers no guidance on how parameters map to the six 'kind' values or which combinations are required. For example, 'approval_wait_seconds' is not mentioned, and the relationship between 'project_id' and 'project_name' is unclear. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a deterministic safety preflight plan for one write operation.' It uses specific verb 'Create' with a specific resource (safety preflight plan) and scope (one write operation). It also distinguishes itself from approval-related tools by explicitly saying 'without creating an approval request,' which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_operation_approval and preview_service_execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it is for previewing a single write operation before execution, and it explicitly notes what it does not do (create an approval request). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context implies it should be used when a deterministic preflight check is needed without triggering approval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable context by stating 'without starting it' and clarifying that it produces an explanation of what would run, which is consistent with the annotation and provides a dry-run behavioral trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes meaning. The second sentence immediately adds practical usage guidance without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description only covers the tool's purpose and a single hint about intents. It does not describe what the 'execution plan' contains, what inputs affect the plan, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters. It only indirectly hints at the 'intent' parameter by listing the enum values (start_dev/start_normal/debug_launch), but it does not explain language, project_root, cwd, env, config, or artifact_dir. This is insufficient given the schema provides no descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('execution plan for a language service intent'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that preview configs or operations. It explicitly mentions the related intents (start_dev/start_normal/debug_launch), which further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence ('Use this to explain what...') gives clear context for when to use this tool instead of actually starting a service. However, it does not contrast with similar preview tools like preview_operation or suggest_service_runtime, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context by specifying that the tool focuses on deterministic error signals and avoids root-cause analysis. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify the nature of the output and limitations, providing good behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, this description is too sparse. It lacks details about input semantics, expected output format (e.g., list, count), and edge cases. The tool's complexity demands more contextual information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely mentions a 'project or deployment time window', which touches on project/deployment and time parameters, but leaves the meaning of fields like 'since' vs 'from/to' and 'limit' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool summarizes deterministic error signals within a project or deployment time window, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'without claiming root cause' distinguishes it from diagnostic tools like diagnose_service or analyze_trace_logs, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a summary of deterministic error signals is needed over a time window. It also sets a boundary by explicitly excluding root-cause claims, which hints at when not to rely on it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'use instead' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating the operation is 'finite' (not streaming) and can 'scan older pages' (indicating pagination/backward traversal). It does not describe return format or rate limits, but given the annotation, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core action and optional behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 15 parameters and no parameter descriptions or output schema; the description doesn't clarify which identifiers are required, how scanning works, or what the return structure is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains 'level' and 'since' filters and perhaps 'limit' implicitly via 'finite' page. The other 12+ parameters (identifiers like project_id, run_id, deployment_id, approval_token) are left unexplained, so agents must guess their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs 'Fetch' and 'scan' with a clear resource ('deployment log page'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like follow_logs by emphasizing 'finite recent' and optional scanning of older pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: fetching a finite recent page and optionally scanning older pages with level/since filters, implying a snapshot-style read. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, leaving some ambiguity among log-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already established. The description adds that it returns diagnostics and validates specific inputs, providing some behavioral context. It does not describe the format of diagnostics or failure modes, but given the annotation, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the key purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and the readOnly annotation helps, but the lack of an output schema and zero param descriptions means the description should clarify return values and parameter roles. It gives a high-level purpose but leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description names cwd, env, and config as the subjects of validation, adding some semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the required language and project_root parameters, and schema coverage is 0%, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('validate') with a clear resource (cwd/env/config for a language service) and explicitly ties it to a pre-step for upsert_service, distinguishing it from sibling tools like diagnose_service.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before upsert_service' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the connection to the upsert workflow is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that navigation may reload the page and lose SPA in-memory state, which is crucial context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as how wait_until affects navigation or what happens on cross-origin attempts beyond the 'same-origin' constraint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and every sentence earning its place. It is concise, clear, and free of unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core function and key caveat, but it omits parameter explanations and return behavior. Since there is no output schema, more detail about expected outcomes and parameter usage would improve completeness. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (url, path, session_id, wait_until). It only hints at same-origin navigation but provides no parameter-specific semantics, leaving the agent without the needed guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform same-origin full page navigation') and identifies the specific resource ('browser debug session'). It also distinguishes from a sibling tool by explicitly mentioning browser_click for SPA route changes, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit usage guidance by warning about state loss and directing users to prefer browser_click for SPA route changes. This clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate (full page navigation) versus an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral nuances. It reveals the tool is intended for snapshot/screenshot preparation, which is helpful, but it doesn't mention side effects, session requirements, or persistence. The core action is clear, but the behavioral footprint is underexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameter-setting tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers its primary function and timing. It may not detail edge cases, but it provides sufficient context for the tool's intended use within the broader browser debug toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description indicates the tool adjusts 'viewport size' (width/height) within a 'browser debug session' (session_id), but it doesn't explicitly explain each parameter's format or constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description offers minimal compensation, though the parameter names are self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('viewport size for a browser debug session page'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like browser_snapshot and browser_screenshot. It also adds context about its purpose ('before snapshot or screenshot checks'), making its role unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before snapshot or screenshot checks' explicitly indicates when to use this tool relative to siblings. It doesn't provide exclusions or alternative tools, but the timing is clear and practical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the tool operates on a 'paused' runtime and aggregates stack/scopes/variables in a single call. It doesn't describe return format or potential errors, but the annotation covers safety and the added context is meaningful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds actionable guidance. 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and usage preference, but lacks parameter documentation and return structure details. It is a viable starting point but leaves gaps that the agent must infer from the schema or other context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description gives no parameter-level details. It does not explain the purpose of frame_id, thread_id, max_variables, or variable_names, leaving parameter semantics to the schema alone. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a paused deployment debug runtime'), and explicitly lists the returned data ('stack/scopes/variables in one call'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like debug_stack_trace, debug_scopes, and debug_variables, which are single-purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over chaining low-level DAP tools.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful context about the tool's role in service creation, but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as return format or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The first sentence states what it does, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, provides a usage scenario, and gives an example. It does not mention related tools like 'list_language_runtime_providers' as a prerequisite or alternative, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines 'language' as a required string with no description. The description partially compensates by giving an example value ('go') and implying it refers to a runtime provider identifier. However, it does not explain the range of acceptable values or any formatting constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specifies the exact action: 'Return the config field schema for a language runtime provider' with a concrete example ('such as go'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'list_language_runtime_providers' by focusing on a single provider's schema rather than listing providers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage context ('Use before creating a service') and a clear rationale ('fill cwd/env/config fields instead of guessing a command string'). Does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the 'instead of guessing' phrasing effectively communicates when not to rely on it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only operation ('Return'). The description adds the scope (projects, services, deployments) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as the size of the snapshot, potential latency, or whether it returns raw vs. summarized data. With annotations covering safety, a mid-range score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states the purpose without any fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, earning a top score for economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only snapshot tool, the description provides sufficient context: it names the three domains covered. However, without an output schema or more detail on return format, 'snapshot' remains mildly ambiguous, so it does not achieve a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (trivially). The description needs to explain no parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no redundant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'SuperDev-wide runtime snapshot' for projects, services, and deployments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_services or list_projects by emphasizing the aggregate 'SuperDev-wide' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a broad overview across multiple categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. listing individual resources. Sibling tools like list_projects and list_services offer more focused alternatives, yet no direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds selection criteria ('local', 'configured with web entrypoints') beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as return format, pagination, or filtering capabilities, so it provides only moderate additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and scope. It could be more complete by mentioning what specific fields are returned (e.g., names, URLs), but given the simplicity of the tool, it is largely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema does not need explanation. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'browser targets' are local frontend deployments with web entrypoints, which helps the agent understand what the tool returns without any parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource 'local frontend deployments configured with web entrypoints', which precisely defines what browser targets are. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_services and list_debug_browsers by focusing on frontend deployments with web entrypoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a list of local frontend deployments is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context from sibling names (e.g., list_debug_browsers) suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the description's 'Return' is consistent. It adds the scoping detail 'registered in the local agent,' which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like return format, ordering, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to meaning ('SuperDev', 'projects', 'local agent').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Low complexity: no parameters, simple list operation, annotation provided. The description tells what is returned and the scope, which is sufficient for a basic list tool. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return fields, but that's not critical given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema already confirms no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool 'Return SuperDev projects registered in the local agent.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'SuperDev projects' identify its function, and the scope 'local agent' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services and list_hosts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use it when you need to list SuperDev projects. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but it's obvious for a simple zero-parameter list tool, so it doesn't confuse the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds context about scope (local, configured) but does not disclose return format or other behavioral details. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and a read-only annotation, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned list (e.g., names, paths, versions), which would be useful since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('local Chromium-compatible browsers configured for SuperDev frontend debugging'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_browser_targets by focusing on configured browsers rather than active targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: to see which local Chromium-compatible browsers are configured for debugging. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns plaintext secrets, is 'not approval-gated', and describes parameter merging semantics ('service overrides'). This goes beyond the minimal read-only annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but efficient—three sentences that each carry critical information. It front-loads the purpose and then packs usage, constraints, and parameter roles. The only minor flaw is the length relative to simple tools, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a credential-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, security boundaries, parameter roles, and read-only status. However, it omits what the returned credentials look like (e.g., structure of the response) and leaves ambiguity about the 'service' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It does state that 'project_id|project_name required' and that a service parameter can merge levels, but it fails to specify whether 'service' refers to service_id or service_name. It also references non-schema fields like 'auth_hint' and 'credential desc', which could confuse an agent looking for these as parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Return plaintext debug credentials (test login/password, service api-key)'. This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_debug_session or debug_variables by specifying the exact type of data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides an explicit condition: 'Call this when has_debug_credentials/debug_credential_hints are visible and authenticated API testing is needed.' It also sets boundaries: 'do not fabricate tokens or bypass auth.' This is direct when-to-use guidance without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Node and JVM (Java/Kotlin) targets are experimental' and 'local managed' scoping, warning users about experimental support and scope limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. It includes the experimental caveat without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only, zero-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it identifies what is listed, the qualifying condition, and the experimental status. No output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false (100% coverage). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description need not add parameter detail. It correctly omits any parameter-related information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'List local managed language runtime deployments...' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_browser_targets or list_debug_sessions, which target different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context—it lists runtime deployments eligible for 'last-resort code debugging'—but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Xsxdot/super-dev'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server