get_debug_output

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without revealing any side effects, state changes, or limitations. An agent cannot infer if this is a safe read operation or if it has any constraints.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could benefit from additional structure or detail without becoming verbose, hence not a perfect 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter complexity, the description is the sole source of information. It lacks detail about the format or content of the returned debug output, and does not clarify scope or integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for confident use.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% trivial. The description does not need to add parameter information, so it meets expectations. A score of 4 reflects the absence of need for further detail.

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 retrieves 'current debug output and errors', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like game_get_errors or game_get_logs, which could cause 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_get_errors or game_get_logs. The description lacks context about typical use cases or when not to use it.

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