list_debug_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what format the output returns, whether it scans recursively, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (scanning project files for specific markers), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about output format, scanning behavior, or error conditions that would be needed for full contextual understanding.

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, with the single parameter 'projectPath' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List all debug blocks') and resource ('in project files'), with explicit definition of what debug blocks are ('code between debug-start and debug-end markers'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing injected debug code rather than analysis, clearing, reading logs, or other operations.

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 ('to see what debug code has been injected'), which implicitly differentiates it from siblings like clear_debug_logs or read_debug_logs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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