debug_memory

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 omits details about the effects of actions like 'clear' (destructive?) and whether 'save' overwrites existing keys. Persistence and side effects are not mentioned, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and examples.

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 tool has 4 parameters, 2 enums, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return values for retrieve/list, the role of key/category, or the effect of each action. Critical context for a multi-action memory tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing example categories (env variables, selectors, issues) that map to the category enum, but does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., key required for save/retrieve but not list/clear). This provides marginal improvement over the schema.

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 saves and retrieves debugging context, with explicit examples like .env variables, selectors, and issues. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are focused on testing, navigation, and screenshots, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling list includes no other memory tools, so it is unique, but the description does not help with situational decisions (e.g., when to use save vs list).

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