Debug inspect

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.