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. It describes the tool's function (detection) and output (environment type), but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or whether it reads file content vs. metadata. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it efficient 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's moderate complexity (environment detection based on a file), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and possible environments, but could be more complete by detailing the return format (e.g., string enum) or error cases, which are missing from both description and structured 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 'filePath' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., file format expectations or analysis depth), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('detect the runtime environment') and resource ('of a specific file'), listing the six possible environments (browser, node, python, php, react-native, wechat). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on environment detection rather than bug analysis, log management, or template retrieval.

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 usage ('to determine which debug code template to use'), implying this tool should be used before selecting a debug template. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the purpose naturally differentiates it from tools like analyze_bug or clear_debug_logs.

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