debug_problem

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. While it describes what the tool generates (hypotheses, test strategies, resolution steps), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only analysis tool or if it makes changes, what format the output takes, whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second specifies the outputs. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose stated 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?

Given the complexity of debugging (which often involves multiple steps and considerations), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how comprehensive the debugging approach is, whether it's interactive or one-shot, or how it handles different types of problems. For a tool that could have significant behavioral complexity, the description provides only basic functional 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it mentions 'a described problem' which corresponds to the 'problem' parameter but doesn't elaborate on how parameters interact or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with additional parameter insights.

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 ('provides a systematic debugging approach', 'generates hypotheses, test strategies, and resolution steps') and identifies the resource ('for a described problem'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_architecture' or 'brainstorm_solutions' by focusing specifically on debugging methodology rather than analysis or ideation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like 'check_dependencies' or 'validate_code' which might also be used in debugging contexts.

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 context ('for a described problem') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include 'check_dependencies', 'validate_code', and 'explain_code' which could all be part of debugging workflows, the description provides no guidance on whether this tool should be used first, last, or instead of those alternatives. The usage is implied rather than explicitly defined.

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