debug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a 90-second timeout and the intentionally narrow scope, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as writing an output file, return behavior, or any permissions/lease requirements, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose is front-loaded, sibling routing follows, and the timeout is stated last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure allows an agent to quickly determine applicability.

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 tool with 20 parameters, the schema is rich enough to carry parameter detail, and the description covers purpose, boundaries, and timeout. The main missing piece is the lack of any description of return values or output behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate, so it is nearly complete but not fully.

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?

Schema coverage is 95%, so the schema already documents most parameters clearly. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the 'matching dSYM UUIDs' requirement, which clarifies how dsym and searchPath relate to the crash artifact.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Symbolicate Apple crash artifacts with matching dSYM UUIDs.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing logs, network, perf, record/trace, and react-devtools as the correct tools for other artifact types.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'This debug namespace is intentionally narrow' and the description names exactly which sibling tools should be used for app logs, HTTP evidence, performance samples, media/traces, and React Native profiles. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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