debuggerChildVariables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves data, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any requirements such as needing an attached debugger, whether the parent variable must be in scope, or the shape of the returned data. This is a significant gap for a debugger-related tool.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. No unnecessary detail or filler is present, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's apparent simplicity, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain how the parent variable should be specified (e.g., the meaning of the array type), what happens if the optional 'parent' parameter is omitted, or what the return value contains. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully guide 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?

The input schema has high coverage (100%) with the parent parameter described as 'The parent variable name.' The tool description does not add further meaning beyond this, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('child variables of a debugger variable'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'debuggerVariables' by explicitly focusing on child variables, which is a useful differentiator.

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 implies usage in the context of debugging when child variables are needed, and the sibling tool 'debuggerVariables' suggests a complementary role. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites like an active debugger session or prior variable selection.

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