debugger_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It fully describes the diagnostic output (platform, RID, path, source, version). It implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects. For a simple health check, this is adequate.

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 sentences that are front-loaded and concise. The first sentence is a single word 'Self-diagnostic', but it is immediately followed by specifics. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description still provides a complete picture of what the tool reports and when to use it. It covers all necessary contextual information.

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?

No parameters in the schema, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing the output fields, which helps the agent understand what the tool returns without needing an output schema.

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 it is a self-diagnostic tool and enumerates exactly what it reports (host platform, RID, netcoredbg path, source, version). It distinguishes from siblings by advising to call this first before starting a real debug session.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this first when something looks wrong, instead of starting a real debug session to find out.' This tells the agent when to use it, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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