debug_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does surface the key risk that this executes code in the target process. It omits other behavioral facts: whether the process must be halted, side effects on state, failure behavior, and no output schema to explain results.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the safety caveat second. Nothing is wasted.

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 side-effecting tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: frame selection defaults, what 'context' changes, and what the evaluation returns.

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% across four parameters, and the description adds nothing about sessionId, expression, context (defaulting to 'repl'), or which frame is used when frameId is omitted. It only vaguely gestures at 'paused frame' without tying it to frameId.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: evaluating an expression in a paused frame. It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like debug_variables and debug_scopes, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'in a paused frame' implies a prerequisite state, but it never says what to do when not paused or when to prefer debug_variables/debug_scopes instead. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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