debugger

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds transparency by stating it produces ranked hypotheses, the smallest safe fix, or honestly admits no bug. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Covers core purpose well but fails to document several parameters. No output schema exists, but description hints at return values (ranked hypotheses, fix). Completeness is moderate given parameter count.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only maps 'prompt' and 'files' to 'bug report, logs, and code'. Other parameters (expert, developerInstructions, cwd, reasoningEffort) are unexplained, leaving significant gaps.

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 it is a debugging specialist that produces ranked root-cause hypotheses and minimal safe fixes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze or ask-* by specifying inputs (bug report, logs, code) and outputs.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for crashes, failing tests, or wrong output', providing clear context for when to use. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from siblings.

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