rn_debug_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the tool reports currently attached targets, implying a read-only snapshot, but doesn't discuss output format, empty results, or side effects. For a zero-param query tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 terse sentences: the first defines what the tool does, the second gives exact usage guidance. Every word contributes, 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the agent's needs: what it returns and when to call it. No additional context is required.

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 tool has zero parameters with an empty schema (100% schema coverage). The description doesn't need to add parameter detail, and the baseline of 4 for no params applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as showing Metro CDP debug targets currently attached, which is clear despite lacking an imperative verb. It distinguishes from siblings by framing it as a first-step diagnostic for rn_ connection issues.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this first when any rn_ tool reports no connection.' This is a precise, actionable trigger condition that stands on its own.

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