mcp-netcoredbg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it states the program restarts, it fails to clarify critical behavioral traits: whether the current process is terminated (destructive), whether debugger state/breakpoints persist, or what happens if no session is active. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first states the action; the second states the primary use case. Every word earns its place without redundant explanation of parameters already covered 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?

Given the low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, 100% schema coverage), the description adequately covers selection criteria. However, it omits prerequisites (requires active session) and error conditions (what if restart fails), which would be expected for a complete debugging tool description.

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% (both 'rebuild' and 'sessionId' are documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema—it implies the 'rebuild' use case via 'after code changes' but doesn't explain parameter interactions or session selection logic.

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 ('Restart') and resource ('debugged program') and distinguishes itself from 'launch' by specifying 'same launch settings.' However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'terminate' or clarify session vs. process lifecycle, stopping short of perfect differentiation.

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?

Provides a 'when-to-use' hint ('Useful after code changes') that maps to the 'rebuild' parameter. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or comparison with alternatives like 'terminate' or 'launch', leaving ambiguity about whether to restart or terminate+launch.

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