debugWorkflow

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 transparently outlines the tool's actions: locate file, read context, diagnose common issues, and suggest fixes. This gives a clear picture of a read-only analysis workflow, even though it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Analyze') and the resource ('Laravel error'). It efficiently communicates the workflow in a compact format with no filler.

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 description adequately covers what the tool does and hints at the output ('suggest fixes'). Since no output schema exists, the description helps set expectations, but it could be slightly more explicit about the response format. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an error-analysis tool with simple parameters.

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?

Both parameters (file and error) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline 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 function: 'Analyze a Laravel error' with a specific verb and resource. It further details the workflow (locate file, read context, diagnose, suggest fixes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like artisan or log that have different purposes.

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 implies the tool should be used when a Laravel error needs analysis, providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit usage exclusions.

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