debug_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Dev visibility' implies a read-only diagnostic function, but the description does not state whether it is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects. The 'not a methodology deliverable' note adds little clarity.

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, which is easy to parse and front-loads the purpose. It does not waste words, though it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 debugging tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the comparison, or any prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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 covers 100% of parameters (access_token, investigation_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema is clear.

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 'Dev visibility: extractor vs manifest for the investigation' indicates the tool provides debugging insight into a comparison between extractor data and manifest data. It is not a tautology and hints at a diagnostic purpose, but it lacks a specific verb or resource to clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like debug_manifest or get_ingest_job.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caveat 'not a methodology deliverable' is a negative statement but does not help an agent decide between debug_ingest and similar debugging tools.

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