debugger-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, and it delivers excellently. It discloses that the tool never fails when the runtime is unreachable but returns a discriminated result, enumerates all failure reasons, and explains nuances like 'sourceMapReady always true - waits for pending source maps' and 'port omitted on Chromium.' This is far beyond basic expectations.

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 fairly long but well-structured with bullet-like enumeration of result variants. It opens with a concise summary of purpose and usage, then dives into necessary detail. Every sentence contributes value, though the length is on the upper edge, making it not a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must fully explain return values, and it does so thoroughly. It covers the connected and not_connected variants, all failure reasons, optional fields, and important behavioral details. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the relationship to debugger-connect and preference for list-devices id. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('JS runtime debugger connection status and diagnostic info'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling debugger tools (debugger-connect, debugger-evaluate) by focusing specifically on status/connectivity verification.

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. It also advises following the 'guidance' field and not retrying in a loop, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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