record_debug_attempt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'records' debug information, but does not state whether this creates a persistent log, whether it updates existing records, whether it requires a valid feature_id, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful context about the tool's scope and contents.

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 six parameters, the description is too minimal to fully support correct invocation. It lacks guidance on how feature_id relates to the debug attempt, what outcome represents, the meaning of status values, and what happens after recording. The tool's purpose is clear, but operational completeness is weak.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for symptom, hypotheses, verification, and debugging status, but it does not mention feature_id, and outcome is only loosely implied by 'experiment results.' The mapping is partial but helpful.

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 action ('기록합니다' = records) and a clear resource (bug cause investigation: symptoms, hypotheses, experiment results, debugging status). It clearly describes what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like record_decision.

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 provides clear usage context: use this when investigating the cause of a bug and needing to record symptoms, hypotheses, verification, and debugging state. It does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is specific enough for basic routing.

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