deso_debugging_guide

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 'solutions' but doesn't specify what the tool actually does behaviorally—e.g., whether it returns step-by-step instructions, references documentation, or provides interactive debugging. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 that front-loads the key information ('Comprehensive debugging guide') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose and structured to convey the essence immediately.

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 complexity of debugging tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., text guide, structured data, links) or how it handles different issues, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('issue' and 'includeCode') with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical use cases, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 as a 'debugging guide for common DeSo integration issues with solutions', which specifies the verb ('debugging guide') and resource ('DeSo integration issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deso_js_guide' or 'explain_deso_architecture' which might also address debugging or integration topics, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as using 'deso_api_explorer' for API exploration or 'generate_deso_code' for code generation instead of debugging guidance.

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