Debug MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive action ('Clear all debug logs'), which is useful context, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, or potential side effects (e.g., impact on system performance). The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance, with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, which would be beneficial for a tool that modifies data.

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%, with the single parameter 'projectPath' documented in the schema as 'The absolute path to the project directory'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Clear all debug logs') and resource ('from the project log file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_debug_logs' and 'list_debug_blocks' that involve reading rather than deletion. It precisely communicates the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('before starting a new debugging session') and why ('to avoid confusion from old logs'), providing clear context for its application. It distinguishes it from alternatives by implying that other tools (e.g., 'read_debug_logs') are for viewing logs, not clearing them.

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