rba_install_debug_runtime

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool installs helpers and returns a snapshot, but does not mention side effects, whether it modifies client state, reversibility, permission needs, or what the snapshot contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is under-specified. It does not explain prerequisites like requiring connected clients, the nature of debug helpers, or the structure of the snapshot. The tool's side effects and return value are unclear.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (target, timeoutMs) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanation of their meaning or valid values (e.g., 'all', 'first', index, timeout behavior). The description does not compensate for the schema coverage gap at all.

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 states a clear action: install debug helpers and return a runtime snapshot. It specifies a verb and resource, but 'debug helpers' is vague and it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like rba_probe_runtime or rba_development_snapshot, so it misses the highest bar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., connected clients), exclusions, or scenarios. The description implies usage but lacks explicit context or comparisons.

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