Inspect Flow Debug Run

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses that the run is not advanced, that returned values are real runtime data, and that long values are truncated unless 'full' is set. It does not discuss instance/auth behavior or error conditions, but it adds meaningful behavioral context for a read-only tool.

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 tightly structured sentence that front-loads the key constraint ('without moving it') and then maps each view to its purpose. Every clause carries useful information with no redundancy.

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 read-only debug inspection tool with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers view modes, truncation, and non-advancing behavior adequately. It stops short of distinguishing the 'breakpoints' view from the separate debug_flow_breakpoints sibling tool, but no critical call information 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic meaning to the view enum by explaining what snapshot, steps, locations, and breakpoints each show. It also clarifies the truncation behavior tied to the 'full' parameter, though it does not elaborate on 'step', 'instance', or 'context_id' beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show a debug run without moving it.' It also names the four view modes and their purposes, making clear it is an inspection tool rather than a control tool like debug_flow_step or debug_flow_run_to.

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 phrase 'without moving it' clearly frames this as a read-only inspection alternative to run-advancing siblings, and the view list explains which inspection mode to choose. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct naming of sibling alternatives such as debug_flow_breakpoints.

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