get_debug_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that the output is 'current' and includes errors; it does not say what happens when no session is active or whether output is a snapshot versus cumulative.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing needs trimming. The terseness is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity one.

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?

The tool has an optional session handle, so it can be called with or without context, yet the description never explains what session is used by default or how the returned errors relate to a running debug session. For a session-aware retrieval tool among many similar readers, this leaves real gaps.

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 100% and the single sessionId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its follow-up-tool requirement. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 verb+resource is identifiable (retrieves current debug output and errors), but 'debug output' is not distinguished from the sibling view_log or get_runtime_tree, so an agent cannot tell which retrieval tool to pick without reading schemas.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling (view_log, start_debug_session, get_runtime_tree, step_frames) is the alternative for adjacent needs.

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