mcp-netcoredbg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose the return format (scope IDs vs objects), error conditions, or required debugger state (e.g., must be paused).

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, efficient six-word sentence with zero redundancy. It is immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 100% schema coverage and simple 2-parameter structure, the description is minimally viable. However, without an output schema, it omits what the tool returns (scope identifiers) and fails to mention the relationship to the 'variables' tool, which likely requires these scopes as input.

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%, with both parameters comprehensively documented ('Stack frame ID (from stack_trace)' and 'Session ID (defaults to current session)...'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('variable scopes') and context ('for a stack frame'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'variables' tool, which likely consumes the output of this tool, preventing a score of 5.

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 string lacks explicit when-to-use guidance. However, the schema description for 'frameId' references 'stack_trace', implying a prerequisite workflow step. No alternatives or explicit prerequisites are stated in the main description.

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