Debugger: Evaluate (REPL)

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly warning about side effects ('Can have side effects (it executes code), so it is not read-only') and explaining output behavior (streams to console, reports compile/runtime errors). It also adds the HALTED requirement, which is critical for correct invocation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose and an example, and each sentence adds necessary context (prerequisite, side effects, alternative tool, scope selection). No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it executes, the required halted state, side effects, output routing, error reporting, scope selection, and a pointer to a simpler alternative. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by giving example expression syntax ('print m.top.count') and clarifying that stackFrameIndex/threadIndex select scope, which aids interpretation beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 verb 'Run', the resource 'BrightScript expression/statement in the halted frame', and specifies the REPL context with concrete examples. It also explicitly contrasts with debugger_get_variables for plain reads, distinguishing it from a sibling.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (halted frame, REPL), the prerequisite that the target must be HALTED, and provides an explicit alternative (debugger_get_variables) for plain variable reads. This gives clear routing guidance.

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