get_debug_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the output is raw and exact/passthrough from Meta, which sets appropriate expectations for a debug tool. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination, error behavior, or any other operational traits.

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 two concise sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded via 'Debug tool:' and the intended-use sentence reinforces the value without repeating schema details.

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 read-only debug tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, names the target resource, and gives an invocation purpose. It would benefit from a bit more detail about the raw response shape, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simple intent.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'for a campaign,' but the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, enums, and the nested time_range object.

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 states a specific function: returning raw action types from the API response and identifying itself as a debug tool. It signals differentiation from reporting sibling tools through the 'Debug tool' label, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to see exactly what conversion/action types Meta returns for a campaign.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_campaign_performance.

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