debug_get_live_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that the tool returns recent raw stream output and is intended only for debugging, but it does not clarify what 'recent' means, whether the call is read-only/non-blocking, or how it behaves for finished or nonexistent builds. This is useful but incomplete transparency.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage restriction is a natural second sentence. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only debug tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the output, the source, and the intended scenario. Gaps like the precise meaning of 'recent' and behavior across build states keep it from being fully complete, but an agent can likely select and invoke it correctly.

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 0% description coverage and the tool description does not mention tailChars at all. The parameter name and JSON-schema constraints (default, maximum, exclusiveMinimum) provide some meaning, but the description adds no guidance on how to choose or omit the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('recent raw stdout and stderr from build processes'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools about build status or waiting. The phrase 'Meant only for debugging stuck builds' sharpens the intended scope further.

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 a clear use context: debugging stuck builds, and even adds an exclusion with 'Meant only.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to choose another tool like get_build_status or await_build, leaving some routing to inference.

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