Goal-driven debug playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that the output is a deterministic multi-phase sequence, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and input/output. No unnecessary words; perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 3 un-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on the format of the returned sequence (e.g., list of tool names, steps) and expected input formats. Annotations mitigate some concerns, but the AI still has gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'URL', 'goal', and 'symptoms' as inputs but does not explain their format, constraints, or examples. Minimal value added over the parameter names alone.

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 tool's function: given URL/goal/symptoms, return a multi-phase debugging sequence. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('tool sequence') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are individual actions.

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 as a starting point for automated WebGL debugging but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No direct guidance on when not to use it.

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