Debug evaluate

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.