get_debug_logger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's return value (guide + usage) and features of the debug logger. It mentions file copying as an AI action, not tool side effect. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which would be ideal.

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 well-structured with a header, trigger list, features, and return info. It is concise but includes only essential details. Slightly longer than necessary due to multilingual strings, but still efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: triggers, features, return value, and recommended use cases. It could clarify whether the tool itself copies files or just recommends it, but overall 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Following the rule for 0 parameters, baseline score is 4.

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 provides an on-screen debug logger, with explicit trigger phrases in multiple languages. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on ads, environment, multiplayer, etc. No ambiguity.

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 gives an explicit list of user requests that should trigger this tool, covering multiple languages and use cases. It also specifies ideal contexts (H5 games, mobile testing, non-technical users). No explicit when-not-to-use, but the triggers are comprehensive.

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