Get Debug Output

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving the agent a clear safety profile. The description is truncated and adds little beyond 'get output and err…', not disclosing details like whether this resets state, whether it's a snapshot vs stream, or how it relates to the engine runtime. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the additions are minimal but not contradictory.

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 truncated mid-sentence with an ellipsis ('err…'), which is a structural failure—it doesn't complete its thought. While brevity is present, the description is under-specified rather than concisely complete. A complete but short description would score higher.

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?

The tool has an output schema, zero parameters, and good annotations, so much is structured. However, the description is truncated and doesn't clarify what 'debug output' includes (stdout, stderr, engine messages?) or how it differs from siblings like game_get_errors and game_get_logs. For a simple tool with strong annotations, this is borderline adequate but the truncation creates a gap.

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, so no parameter meaning needs to be added. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to document parameter semantics since there are none.

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 states 'Get the current debug output and err…' which identifies the verb (get), resource (debug output), and partially the scope (errors). However, it is truncated with an ellipsis that cuts off mid-thought, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like game_get_errors or game_get_logs, which could overlap in scope. The name and title reinforce the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus game_get_errors, game_get_logs, or other diagnostic siblings. No context about whether this is the preferred tool for general debugging output or when alternatives should be chosen. The description provides no when/when-not direction.

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