get_debug_output

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states that output is 'current' without explaining whether the call is read-only, clears the buffer, or requires any ongoing process. No side effects or return behavior are disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the remaining space to clarify its relationship to view_log.

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?

For a parameterless getter, the description conveys the basic action, but with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent cannot know what the returned debug output looks like or how it differs from the log-viewing sibling tool. This is adequate as a minimal viable definition but has clear 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline for no-parameter tools applies.

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 clear verb and resource: it retrieves the current debug output and errors. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like view_log, which could overlap in purpose.

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 given about when to call this tool instead of alternatives such as view_log, get_scene_insights, or get_node_insights. There is no mention of prerequisites like a running project or whether this should be used after a run.

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