run_debugger_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (text report + screenshot) but fails to clarify side effects (does it pause simulation? modify waveform view?), performance characteristics, or whether the operation is read-only. The 'debugging guide' component is mentioned but not explained.

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 consists of two efficient sentences totaling under 30 words. The first sentence front-loads the value proposition (comprehensive snapshot), while the second clarifies the return format. Minor deduction for the first sentence being a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence.

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 absence of both an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the high-level return value (text + screenshot) but lacks detail on the report structure, the nature of the 'debugging guide,' or formatting details that would help the agent parse the response. Sufficient for basic invocation but leaves gaps for response handling.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter explanation since the tool operates as a stateless snapshot request with no configuration options.

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 identifies the tool as providing a 'Comprehensive debug snapshot' for hardware debugging, listing specific components (simulation state, signal values, screenshot, debugging guide). It implies aggregation of multiple data sources, distinguishing it from siblings like take_waveform_screenshot or get_signal_value, though it could explicitly state this aggregation benefit.

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?

While the word 'Comprehensive' hints at using this for full-context debugging, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus granular alternatives like describe_signal or sim_status. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., simulator connection required) or when the snapshot is most valuable.

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