Debug MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (no destructive effects), requires specific parameter handling (e.g., absolute path for projectPath), outputs a template for manual insertion, and includes detailed post-usage workflows and cleanup requirements. This covers safety, constraints, and operational context effectively.

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 overly verbose and includes extensive procedural instructions (e.g., post-insertion user communication, temporary modification marking) that are not core to the tool's purpose. While informative, this bloats the description with content better suited for external documentation, reducing conciseness and front-loading of key 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 complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter nuances, and integration with sibling tools like 'read_debug_logs'. It provides all necessary context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly, despite the lack of structured annotations or output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of the 'projectPath' parameter with specific instructions and warnings, and it implicitly clarifies the purpose of 'environment' and 'logMessage' through usage context. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics for all parameters beyond the schema's details.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a debug code template for a specific environment.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('debug code template'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_debug_logs' by focusing on template generation rather than log analysis.

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 explicit usage instructions, including when to use it (for generating debug templates), when not to use it (e.g., not for direct logging with console.log()), and alternatives like 'read_debug_logs' for analyzing results. It also outlines prerequisites and post-usage steps, such as manual insertion and user communication.

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