debug_last_error

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads the error queue of the last failed command but does not disclose whether it is destructive, whether it clears errors, or if it requires any instrument state. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description to explain the return format.

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 extremely concise: two sentences providing the function and use case with no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema and a single parameter, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, it lacks parameter explanation and prerequisite context (e.g., that a command must have failed before calling). The output schema indirectly covers return values, but behavioral details are missing.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'alias' (optional, default 'default'), but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameter's purpose, usage, or effect. This adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 debugs the last failed command by reading the instrument error queue, and provides a specific use case (investigating command failure). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmw_get_error or ps_get_error, which likely read the error queue generically.

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 includes an explicit use case: '命令执行失败后排查原因' (investigate reason after command execution failure). This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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