Debug 指引

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, logs interactions, or what side effects may occur. For an interactive tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a more structured format, such as bullet points for the two key actions (guidance and generation).

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 the tool's interactive nature and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the main goal but lacks detail on how the guidance works or what the structured steps look like.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the overall purpose, but does not elaborate on parameter usage or provide examples.

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 what the tool does: it guides users to provide correct error information and generates structured troubleshooting steps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on acceptance, architecture, product specification, compilation, interrogation, and translation.

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 when a user reports an error, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is clear but lacks depth.

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