debugger-status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so by listing returned fields, noting platform-specific behaviors (projectRoot empty on Chromium, sourceMapReady always true with waiting semantics, no-op on Chromium), and stating failure mode. This is comprehensive and transparent beyond what annotations would provide.

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 concise, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then enumerates return fields and behavior details in structured sentences. Every sentence adds value, achieving high information density.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's return (listing fields and special behavior for sourceMapReady and projectRoot), failure conditions, and platform differences. This provides complete context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional output documentation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context: 'port' is 'Metro server port (ignored for Chromium)' and 'device_id' is from 'debugger-connect', which aids understanding beyond the schema. However, it could elaborate on possible values or constraints for deeper semantics.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Get JS runtime debugger connection status and diagnostic info'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like debugger-connect which establishes connections. The purpose is 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when you need to verify connectivity before using other debugger tools,' providing clear context for when to invoke. It also mentions failure conditions ('Fails if the runtime is unreachable') but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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