Debug variables

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.