lepton_debug_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool returns a non-executing plan, implying no side effects, but fails to disclose whether it requires special permissions, affects system state, or has rate limits. The behavioral coverage is minimal.

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 sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It under-specifies the tool's functionality and parameters, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 6 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, return value structure, or how this 'plan' differs from actual execution, leaving major gaps.

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 0%, and the tool description does not explain any parameters (mode, login, target, context, http_port, name_type). This adds no value beyond the schema structure, leaving agents to guess parameter meanings.

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 it returns a non-executing debug/capture launch plan for specific tools (gdb, lldb, etc.). The verb 'return' and resource 'plan' are specific, and listing tools helps differentiate from siblings. However, the exact content or format of the plan is not clarified.

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 like actual debugger commands or other capture tools (e.g., gpu_trace). The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios.

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