get_debugger_child_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves child variables, but fails to disclose what happens if the variable has no children, if it requires an active debugger session, or if the operation is non-destructive. Minimal disclosure leaves the agent uninformed about failure modes or prerequisites.

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 concise line that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is relevant and there is no redundancy. However, it is extremely brief and could benefit from a bit more structure or context without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite simple parameters and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context: it does not mention that an active debugger session is required (via 'get_debugger_session' or similar), nor does it describe the return format. With 100% schema coverage, the core parameter info is present, but the agent is left without operational context.

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?

Input schema has 2 parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds 'structure components, table rows' hinting at the nature of nested values, but the schema already explains 'Parent variable name to expand' and system ID usage. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds marginal value, meeting 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 'Get child/nested variable values (structure components, table rows)' clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving nested values from a parent variable. The examples 'structure components, table rows' provide useful specificity. Among siblings, it is distinct from 'get_debugger_variables' which likely lists top-level variables, making differentiation straightforward.

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 usage for expanding variables to see their children, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_debugger_variables'. No 'when-not' guidance or prerequisites are mentioned. The context is clear but incomplete, lacking direct comparison to siblings.

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