get_blackbox_disable_debug

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by noting the data type (UINT32) and default (OFF). However, it does not explain what the returned value means (e.g., 0 includes debug, 1 excludes) or any side effects. It adds some insight beyond the empty schema but lacks full disclosure.

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 short and to the point, front-loading the tool name and a brief explanation. Every phrase earns its place, though a clearer structure (e.g., separating explanation from type info) could improve readability.

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 no output schema, so the description should indicate what the return value represents. It mentions 'exclude debug fields' but not the format (e.g., boolean 0/1). For a simple getter among many similar siblings, this is a gap but not severe.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds meaning by clarifying the tool's purpose and the setting it accesses. The schema provides no information, making the description essential.

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 retrieves a setting to 'exclude debug fields' from blackbox logging, which is a specific, distinct function among sibling tools like get_blackbox_disable_acc. It uses a verb 'Get' and a resource 'blackbox_disable_debug'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to exclude debug fields, or what the corresponding setter does). The agent receives no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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