verify_debug_id_integrity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the validation intent without mentioning read-only behavior, error handling, return format, or side effects. The agent is left guessing what 'validate' produces or whether files are modified.

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 concise sentence that states the tool's core function without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately comprehensible.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the validation result looks like (e.g., boolean, success/failure, exception). The agent lacks essential context to interpret the tool's outcome, making the description incomplete for practical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (jsPath and mapPath), so the schema already adequately documents their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the tool's purpose, which is fine given the coverage.

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 action (Validate) and the specific resource (minified production bundle vs source map) using a distinctive mechanism (embedded Debug IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_sourcemap_match, which may use a different validation approach.

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 use for verifying bundle-map integrity after minification, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. It does not state when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools like audit_sourcemap_match.

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