Debug MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'helps you understand' but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description is vague about how suggestions are generated or their reliability.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its place by stating the tool's purpose and its utility, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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's complexity (analysis with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output expectations, which are important for an analysis tool without structured output documentation.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on input values. It mentions 'bug description' and 'files' but only repeats schema info.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('analyze', 'provide suggestions') and resources ('bug description'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clear_debug_logs or read_debug_logs. It explicitly mentions outputs like 'possible causes, affected files, and debugging strategies'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('before adding debug logs'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for preliminary analysis rather than direct debugging actions.

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