debug_output

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

The description discloses that the tool drains output on each call, a behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction; the annotation and description align on safe read-only behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence clearly states purpose, second adds important usage context and caveats. Ideal structure.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers return values ('captured lines with category and originating file/line'). Given the sibling tools are diverse debugging tools, this description is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds meaningful context: default values for wait (1 second) and clear (true), and the effect of drain behavior. This adds value beyond the schema 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 'Read' and the resource 'console output', listing specific types (print(), stdout, stderr, runtime errors with source location). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debug_status and the language server, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states 'THIS IS THE ONLY WAY to see what the game actually did' and contrasts with the language server, which checks compilation not runtime output. Also explains that output is drained on each call, guiding the agent on how to use successive calls.

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