debug_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the credential requirement (META_APP_ID and META_APP_SECRET) and indicates what the tool inspects (properties, permissions, expiration, validity). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or response format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the credential requirement is presented succinctly. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies what information the tool provides ('properties, permissions, expiration, and validity'), which effectively covers the return content. It also notes the required credentials. For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could explicitly mention response format or error behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'input_token' with description 'Access token to debug/inspect'. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Debug an access token to inspect its properties, permissions, expiration, and validity.' This is a specific verb with a clear resource and scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling token tools like exchange_token and refresh_token by focusing on inspection rather than token lifecycle management.

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 implies usage through its purpose ('Debug an access token...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use compared to alternatives like exchange_token or refresh_token. It provides a prerequisite ('Requires META_APP_ID and META_APP_SECRET') but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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