Dbg Exit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies none of it. It does not disclose whether exiting kills the debugged process, detaches, destroys session state, or whether it is reversible — critical for an operation named "exit".

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 words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded detail beyond the name, so the brevity costs clarity rather than saving it.

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 state-changing debugger control with two optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: effect on the target, effect on session state, and interaction with the timeout parameter.

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%, so both optional parameters (timeout, instance_id override) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, but baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

"Exit debugger" is essentially the plain expansion of the name dbg_exit, adding no scope or resource detail beyond what the identifier already implies. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as dbg_start, dbg_continue, or close_database (does it end a session, detach, or terminate the target process?).

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be called to end a session, to detach, or how it relates to dbg_start/close_database.

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