debugHelper

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action (analyzing) and result (guidance), which conveys a read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it does not detail how optional parameters affect the output, nor the format of the guidance, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's internal behavior.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally clarify what the debugging guidance looks like and how the optional parameters contribute. It does convey the basic purpose, but lacks detail on return values and parameter usage patterns, leaving the agent to infer some 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by referring to 'error message or bug description' which aligns with the 'error' parameter, but it does not clarify the purpose of 'code', 'context', or 'language' beyond their existing schema descriptions.

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 with a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('error message or bug description'), and the outcome ('provides debugging guidance'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'explainThisCode' (which explains code) and 'reviewCode' (which reviews quality), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool should be used when an error message or bug description is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'reviewCode' or 'explainThisCode'. There are no exclusions or alternative comparisons, so guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.