debug_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states that execution happens in debug mode without deploying and that results and console logs are returned, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, resource limits, or safety considerations beyond the 'without deploying' qualifier.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes key modifiers ('debug mode', 'without deploying', 'returns execution result and console logs') without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a good overview of purpose, behavior, and expected return. It could mention prerequisites or edge cases, but for a debug execution tool, the essentials are covered.

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 all three parameters (content, function_name, params) adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional param-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('JS code') with a clear scope ('in debug mode (without deploying)'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like run_function by highlighting the debug-only nature and return of console logs.

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 testing code without deployment but does not explicitly mention alternatives or explain when to use this tool over run_function or other code execution tools. Context is present but no direct comparison or exclusions are given.

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