debug_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the platform_connect prerequisite, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose return format, whether topic and query are mutually exclusive (if both provided, which wins?), error behavior, or whether read-only. '[Arch Analyze]' is an unexplained label. For a read-style tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is expected.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose. The usage modes are stated compactly in a single sentence. Minor waste: the '[Arch Analyze]' prefix adds no information to an agent and could be omitted. Overall efficient.

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?

For a 2-parameter, 0-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes well. However, the ambiguous interplay between topic and query, plus no mention of return structure or the meaning of '[Arch Analyze]', leaves an agent uncertain in edge cases. It's adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the three usage modes (topic/query/neither). However, it introduces ambiguity — the topic schema says 'Use without arguments to list all available topics' which is confusing (topic without arguments? both empty?) — and does not clarify whether topic and query can be combined or are mutually exclusive. The description adds marginal value but leaves an important interaction undefined.

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 retrieves or searches Agent ABL documentation, listing distinct modes (topic, query, or list-all). The verb 'explains documentation... Get or search' is specific about the resource. However, the leading '[Arch Analyze]' prefix is confusing — it seems like a tool-label not tied to the tool's function, and the description doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling tools that also touch ABL documentation (e.g., debug_lint_abl, debug_arch_sop), so sibling differentiation is weak.

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 clear usage modes: provide 'topic' for full content, 'query' to search, or neither to list all topics. It also states a prerequisite — 'Requires platform_connect first' — which is valuable routing information against siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, but the usage modes are quite explicit.

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