obsidian_debug

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states 'attach or detach' without disclosing side effects, state persistence, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies debugger state.

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?

A single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks detail, making it borderline under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two optional booleans, the description omits critical context about mutual exclusivity, default behavior, and return values. It is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description ('Attach debugger' and 'Detach debugger'), but these merely echo the tool description. The description does not clarify mutual exclusivity of 'on' and 'off' or behavior when both are set, missing an opportunity to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('attach or detach') and specifies the resource ('Chrome DevTools Protocol debugger'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like obsidian_cdp and obsidian_devtools by being debugger-specific.

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 obsidian_cdp or obsidian_devtools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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