edb_set_debug_output

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

Annotations already indicate this tool is destructive (changes state) and idempotent. The description adds the operational detail that it enables/disables debug output and lists categories, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., performance impact, interaction with other settings). With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a clear overview sentence, an analogy, a list of categories, and an Args/Returns section. It is concise enough to be quickly parsed, though the category list could be slightly trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter (containing two sub-fields), a return type specified, and annotations present, the description covers the functionality adequately. It could elaborate on the exact format of the return string, but this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is reported as 0%, the schema actually contains descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that an empty category lists available categories, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates defaults and usage. This sufficiently compensates for any schema gaps.

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: enabling or disabling GDB internal debug output. It provides a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (GDB internal debug output), and adds context by equating it to EDB's Debug Logger panel, which helps distinguish it from other configuration tools among siblings.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_configure_debugger). It only implies use for troubleshooting via the 'troubleshooting' mention, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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