debug_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('JSON string format') which is helpful, but doesn't address other important aspects like whether this requires active debug sessions, what happens if none exist, or any rate limits. It provides basic transparency but misses key operational details.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and return format with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently structured.

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 this is a zero-parameter tool with an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides adequate context about what information is retrieved. However, it could be more complete by mentioning relationships to sibling tools or typical use cases within debugging workflows.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get current debug session status') and resources ('available configuration names'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like debug_start or debug_stop, which would require a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_command or get_runtime_config. It lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns from the tool name alone.

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