debug_evaluate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'evaluate in paused frame' and 'returns value and type' adds context about the evaluation environment without contradicting 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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the action and context. Every sentence is useful and no unnecessary words.

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 and low complexity, the description adequately covers the return value and the evaluation context. It provides enough information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and outcome.

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 the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on frame_id usage or expression syntax, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the action ('evaluate a GDScript expression'), the context ('paused frame'), and the results ('returns value and type'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug_inspect or debug_stack_trace.

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 provides a specific use case ('check state at a breakpoint') and contrasts with an alternative ('without adding print() calls'). While not exhaustive, it gives clear guidance on when to use the tool.

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