enable_debug_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the ordering requirement (must be called before breakpoints/stepping), which is useful behavioral context beyond the tool's name. However, it does not explain side effects, idempotency, or connection requirements, leaving significant gaps for a state-changing tool. The added disclosure is minimal but present.

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 a single sentence with two clauses: it states the primary action and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and the critical usage ordering. It does not explain what happens when the debugger is enabled or whether a connection is required, but the schema covers the parameter, and sibling tools suggest a connection context. It is reasonably complete for a low-complexity tool, but lacks some contextual detail that would make it fully self-contained.

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 fully documents the only parameter, connection_id, with the description 'Chrome connection to use.' The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Enable JavaScript debugger.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the added note 'Must be called before breakpoints or stepping' distinguishes it from sibling debugging tools like breakpoint and step by establishing its role as a prerequisite. This is unambiguous.

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 usage context by stating 'Must be called before breakpoints or stepping,' which tells the agent when this tool should be used relative to other debugging actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the prerequisite relationship is strong and actionable. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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