debug_investigate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's aggregation and analysis behavior but does not mention potential side effects, read-only nature, permission requirements, or whether it modifies state. The context added is helpful but not exhaustive.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It is concise but could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) for clarity. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately hints at the output (hypotheses, evidence chain, next steps). Parameter count is 8 with full schema coverage. The description is reasonably complete for a debugging aggregation tool, though it could specify the output format in more detail.

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 100% with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds overall context but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 that the tool aggregates debugging information (errors, events, network, DOM, storage, artifacts) based on input symptoms and outputs hypotheses, evidence, and next steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_errors_aggregate or browser_events which handle only individual data sources.

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 implies usage when a problem symptom is known and a comprehensive investigation is needed. However, it does not specify when to prefer this over individual debugging tools (e.g., browser_errors_aggregate, browser_network) or provide exclusions. No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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