Debug scopes

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.