agent_debug_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using the DebuggerAgent, but does not disclose whether the tool executes code, modifies state, or is purely read-only. While 'diagnose' implies analysis, the lack of explicit behavioral details keeps this at a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently captures the action, inputs, and expected outcome, making every word earn its place.

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 minimal schema (2 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description provides adequate context: it states the input types and the expected result (root cause and fix). It could clarify the output structure or how 'context' should be used, but it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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% with descriptions for both 'log' and 'context'. The tool description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The 'log' parameter is implicitly aligned with 'error logs, stack traces, or failing tests'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Diagnose' and clearly identifies the resources (error logs, stack traces, failing tests) and the intended outcome (root cause and recommended fix). It also names 'DebuggerAgent', which distinguishes it from sibling agent tools like agent_review_code.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when there are error logs, stack traces, or failing tests to diagnose. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the highest rating.

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