Get the hypothesis-driven debugging workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly conveys that this is an informational tool ('Explains how to debug', 'Read this'), implying no side effects. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'does not modify state,' but the nature of a guide makes this evident. The behavior is transparent enough.

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 concise and front-loaded: it immediately states what the tool does, lists the workflow stages, and then gives usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundant content.

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 is a simple guide with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers its purpose, content, invocation options, and recommended timing. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a detailed enum and description. The description adds value by explaining when to use the 'stage' parameter ('or a specific stage once underway'), which is not in the schema beyond 'Omit for the full end-to-end guide.' This contextual usage guidance goes beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: it explains the hypothesis-driven debugging workflow used by log-probe-mcp, listing the specific stages (reconnaissance, hypothesize, instrument, reproduce, analyze, converge, resolve). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are operational actions (e.g., probe_server_start, debug_session_create).

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 provides explicit usage instructions: call with no arguments for the full guide, or with a specific stage once underway. It also advises reading it before starting a debugging session if unfamiliar, giving clear context on when to use this tool over the other debugging tools.

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