get_debug_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals this is a read-only operation ('Get masked configuration') that returns masked data, which is useful behavioral context (noting masking). However, it doesn't disclose what 'masked' means precisely, what the response shape is, whether it has side effects, or what 'connection issues' context implies. Some value added but gaps remain.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the key action (Get) and purpose (masked configuration for debugging). No wasted words. It is efficient, though with no parameters or usage guidance it might benefit from slightly more content.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries the full explanatory burden. It communicates the core read-only diagnostic intent, and the masking detail adds context. However, it doesn't describe the return structure or relationship to get_obs_health and reconnect_obs, which are likely related diagnostic tools, so completeness is moderate.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description needs no parameter explanation. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies—the description correctly avoids fabricating parameter detail where none exists.

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 'Get masked configuration for debugging connection issues' identifies a specific verb (get) and resource (configuration), and the purpose of debugging connection issues. It's reasonably clear, though it doesn't specify what the configuration contains or what kind of debugging it supports. It does distinguish from siblings like get_obs_health and get_scene_list, though implicitly rather than explicitly.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. Siblings like get_obs_health, reconnect_obs, and get_current_show_state suggest overlapping diagnostics functions, but the description doesn't say when to choose this tool over them. There's no when/when-not guidance at all.

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