debug-api-response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it's a 'debug tool' and shows 'raw API response,' which implies read-only behavior and potential verbosity, but it does not specify critical details such as whether it requires authentication, if it has rate limits, what format the response is in, or if it affects system state. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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, efficient sentence: 'Debug tool: Show raw API response from workspaces endpoint for troubleshooting.' It is front-loaded with the key purpose and context, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a debug tool with no parameters), the description provides basic context but lacks completeness. There is no output schema, so the description does not explain return values (e.g., what the 'raw API response' includes). With no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, the description is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps, aligning with a score of 3.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. According to the rules, for 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as there is nothing to compensate for, and the description does not mislead about parameters.

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 purpose: 'Debug tool: Show raw API response from workspaces endpoint for troubleshooting.' It specifies the verb ('Show'), resource ('raw API response from workspaces endpoint'), and context ('for troubleshooting'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-workspace' or 'list-workspaces' that might also retrieve workspace data, which prevents a score of 5.

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 implies usage context by stating 'for troubleshooting,' suggesting this tool should be used when debugging issues rather than for regular operations. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get-workspace' or 'list-workspaces'), nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity, fitting a score of 3.

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