debug_test_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses headed mode, verbose evidence capture, repair attempts, screenshots, and returns a detailed 'why failed' explanation. It does not mention potential side effects like re-execution cost or auth requirements, but still provides substantial behavioral detail.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a brief details paragraph, then clearly formatted Args and Returns lists. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return values comprehensively, which is critical given no output schema. It lacks explicit caveats like behavior with invalid run_ids or prerequisites, but for a debug tool it is largely complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section compensates by explaining each parameter in context: run_id is 'the run containing the failure' and case_id is 'the case_id of the specific failure to debug.' This fully clarifies the parameters beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-run a failed test case in headed mode with verbose evidence capture.' It then details what the tool shows (exact failing step, repair attempts, screenshots, explanation), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_test_results which likely just retrieve results.

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 clearly implies usage for debugging a failed test case by re-running it and providing diagnostic insights. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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