Debugger: Get Variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: response entry structure (name, type, value, childCount), container response format, path segment semantics (quoted key case-sensitive AA lookup, bare number array index), and defaults for stackFrameIndex and threadIndex. No contradictions.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, response format, path mechanics, and defaults. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the optional parameters are listed at the end. No redundancy or filler.

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 debugger inspection tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the halted prerequisite, response shape, how to traverse containers, and all parameter defaults. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters, so baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining variablePath semantics in detail (e.g., ['m','top'] vs quoted 'key' forcing case-sensitive lookup) and stating defaults for stackFrameIndex (0 = top) and threadIndex (stopped/primary thread), which are not in 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?

The description opens with a precise verb and object: 'Return variables in scope at a stack frame while HALTED.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like debugger_get_callstack (stack frames) and debugger_evaluate (expressions) by focusing on variable inspection, and it specifies the halted condition.

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?

Provides clear context: use when halted, and explains how to drill into containers via variablePath. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous and the description gives a concrete scenario ('while HALTED') and optional drill-down behavior.

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