mcp-netcoredbg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing example status values ('running, stopped, etc.'), hinting at possible return states. However, it fails to clarify if this is read-only, if it requires an active debug session, or error conditions.

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 sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately qualifies the resource and expected value range. 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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The status examples partially compensate for the missing output schema, but the lack of annotations means critical behavioral context (read-only nature, session requirements) is missing.

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%, providing a complete baseline. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already adequately documents the optional 'sessionId' parameter including default behavior and cross-reference to 'list_sessions'.

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 resource ('debugger status'), and the parenthetical examples '(running, stopped, etc.)' clarify the domain. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling query tools like 'list_sessions' or 'threads'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check status vs. proceeding directly with 'pause' or 'continue'). The schema mentions 'list_sessions' for parameter values, but this is not tool-selection guidance.

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