debug-assist

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it suggests step-by-step actions, or requires additional context. The agent has no insight into side effects or limitations beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with key action and resource. However, it lacks structure like separated sections, and could include more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't specify what the tool returns (e.g., plain text, structured reasoning) or how to best formulate the context parameter. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a suite, but the description stands alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It mentions 'errors' but does not explicitly map to errorDescription or explain how context is used. The agent gains little understanding beyond the 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Analyze errors' and mentions 'debugging strategies and root cause analysis', clearly distinguishing from siblings like analyze-codebase or explain-concept. However, it could be more specific about error types or scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not state prerequisites, when to avoid, or how it differs from other debugging-related tools like review-approach or generate-tests.

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