exit_debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates the tool ends the debugged process and stops the debugger, implying a destructive termination. However, it does not disclose side effects like loss of debug state or whether cleanup is performed.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose and behavioral outcome concisely.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps. It does not explain return value semantics (e.g., does it return success status or throw?), although the output schema may cover that. It is complete enough for a simple terminate action but lacks confirmation or error handling hints.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description needs no parameter details. The description appropriately provides no param info, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 terminates the debugged process and stops the debugger, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes well from other debugger control tools like 'suspend_debugger' or 'step_into', though it could be more explicit about the finality of the action.

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 like 'suspend_debugger' or 'continue_execution'. There is no mention that this is irreversible or that debugging should be active before calling it.

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