debuggerChildVariables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'child variables' entail (e.g., nested objects, arrays). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in debugging contexts.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by stating the verb and target directly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns (e.g., structure of child variables), error handling, or dependencies on other debugger tools. For a debugging-related tool with potential nested data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and behavior.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'parent' parameter documented as 'The parent variable name.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter usage, format, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 states the action ('Retrieves') and target ('child variables of a debugger variable'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerVariables' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity for sibling distinction.

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. With siblings like 'debuggerVariables' (likely for general variable listing) and 'debuggerSetVariableValue' (for modification), the description offers no context on prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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