mcp_get_debug_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Get', implying a read, but discloses nothing about scope, permissions required, size/rate of the response, or what 'debug information' actually contains. For a diagnostics tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient structuring of useful content. It is front-loaded by default with so little to front-load.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return surface and safety profile, and it does neither. For a diagnostics tool whose output content is its entire value, this leaves the agent unable to predict what it will receive.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single required 'site' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Site id (see list_sites)'. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters and the description adds nothing beyond it.

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?

States a verb+resource ('Get detailed debug information'), which is clearer than a bare name, but 'debug information' is vague and does not distinguish it from siblings such as mcp_get_health, mcp_get_system_info, mcp_get_php_info, or mcp_get_version. An agent cannot tell what this tool returns that those don't.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of what 'debug information' covers or when to prefer it over mcp_get_health/mcp_get_php_info/mcp_get_system_info. The agent is left to infer entirely from the name.

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