debug_inspect

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe for reads. The description adds important behavioral context by noting it only works while paused, which is not captured by 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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second provides usage context.

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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and the description covering purpose, usage, and output, it is fairly complete. It could mention more about the output structure details, but it is adequate for an AI agent.

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?

The sole parameter (frame_id) is described in the schema as 'Frame id from debug_stack_trace', and the description repeats this use. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: inspect variables in a stack frame, and explicitly states the return structure (scopes, variables, values, types). It distinguishes from sibling tools like debug_evaluate, which evaluates expressions, by focusing on all visible variables.

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 clear guidance: use the frame_id from debug_stack_trace, and only meaningful while execution is paused. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts, but the condition implies when not to use.

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