debug_evaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that evaluation happens in the debuggee context but does not disclose whether evaluation can have side effects, how errors are surfaced, or what the result looks like. For a potentially mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word carries meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are already well documented in the schema.

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, so the description should explain return behavior or side effects, but it does neither. It also fails to indicate when to use this versus nearby debug tools. The schema covers parameters, but an agent still lacks critical operational context.

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%, so the schema already documents context, frame_id, expression, and session_id. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and names the resource ('an expression in the debuggee context'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like debug_get_variables or debug_get_scopes, but the evaluation concept is distinct enough that an agent can infer its role.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as debug_get_variables, debug_get_scopes, or debug_step_over. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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