debug_guidance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does say the return is 'concise guidance', which is real information about cost and output shape, but it does not state that the call is side-effect free, that it requires no active debug session, or that it is safe to call repeatedly.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'for coding agents' is mildly redundant given the tool is exposed to an agent, but nothing is wasted and the purpose arrives immediately.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool in a crowded family of eleven debug siblings, the definition is adequate but thin. It does not say what topics the guidance covers, whether it reflects the current debug session, or how it relates to the individual debug_* tools.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds only that no argument is needed to obtain the guidance.

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: returns guidance about the debugger MCP tools. It is clearly a meta/help tool, which distinguishes it from the action siblings (debug_launch, debug_step, debug_evaluate, etc.), but it never names those siblings or says explicitly that it covers them.

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 'when and how to use the debugger MCP tools' implies this is the entry point to consult before or instead of guessing at the action tools, but the guidance is only implied. There is no explicit 'call this first' or 'use when unsure which debug tool applies' instruction and no stated exclusions.

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