Debug Docs Runtime Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is temporary and diagnostic, but doesn't detail what 'runtime/source information' includes or any constraints beyond that.

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?

Two concise sentences with the verb and purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value, no repetition of schema data, and the structure is 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?

The tool is simple (one param, output schema exists), and annotations cover safety. However, the unexplained parameter and lack of detail about the returned information make this minimally adequate rather than complete. The description does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'user_google_email' parameter at all. The agent is given no hint about why this email is needed or how it affects results, leaving a significant gap.

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 returns runtime/source information with a specific diagnostic purpose (verifying code checkout for stale MCP instances). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly about document, Gmail, or Drive operations.

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?

Provides clear context: use for diagnosing stale MCP server instances. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a temporary diagnostic tool, the intended use case is sufficiently specific.

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