debug.eval

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose whether invoking a method can mutate state, produce side effects, or what happens on failure (e.g., method not found, exception). The behavior is under-specified.

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 (two sentences), no redundant information, and to the point. It could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but the brevity is acceptable for a simple tool.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., return value of the method). It does not explain the evaluation context, error handling, or how object_id relates to the debug session. Incomplete for a complex debugging tool.

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 75%, so the description adds limited value. The description provides an example of how to pass arguments for args, reinforcing the schema's description. However, the method parameter lacks schema description and is not elaborated in the description.

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 'Invoke a method on an object' with specific examples for arguments, making the purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like debug.inspect or debug.get_variable, which might also involve method calls or evaluations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as debug.get_variable or debug.inspect. There are no mentions of prerequisites or context (e.g., requires a running debug session with a paused thread).

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