debug_runner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavior details: 'Deterministic, zero LLM', script-mode auto-runtime selection, and 14 error types with 4-language stack traces. However, it does not mention potential side effects of running arbitrary commands (e.g., file modifications, network access), which would be important for a command execution tool.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence fronts the primary purpose and outputs, while the second adds a key behavioral detail (script mode runtime selection) and the third states determinism. Every sentence contributes value.

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, the description compensates by detailing the analysis output (14 error types, 4-language stack traces, suggested actions) and key behavior (deterministic, zero LLM). It lacks a bit on success-handling or side effects, but the core context is covered, especially with rich parameter descriptions in the schema.

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%, and the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., script auto-picks runtime, pass exactly one of command/script/test). The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 runs a command/script/test and analyzes failures, with specific features like 14 error types and 4-language stack traces. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., test_bridge, tsc_check) by emphasizing execution plus automated failure analysis.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as test_bridge or find_tests. The description implies general debugging use but does not provide exclusions or compare against sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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