get_scope_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (requires paused execution) but does not mention read-only nature, error behavior, or side effects, which are important for a debugger tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: first sentence states purpose, second provides prerequisite and usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 is moderate complexity with no output schema. The description misses critical context about return format (e.g., list of variable names and values) and does not explain how to iterate over scopes or handle errors, leaving gaps for agent reasoning.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explanation of scope types or default usage), so a baseline 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 'Inspect variable values in a call frame scope,' which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_debugger_state by implying a dependency, but does not explicitly contrast with evaluate_at_frame, preventing a 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 provides explicit usage context: 'Only works when execution is paused' and directs to use get_debugger_state first. This guides the agent on prerequisites but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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