Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• debugB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a JSON payload mirrored as structuredContent and explains session targeting defaults. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., process launch, memory writes, mutation) or failure/error behavior for such a powerful, stateful DAP surface.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three concise sentences: the first establishes the core protocol and invocation model, the second covers return behavior, and the third explains session lifecycle and targeting. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the high complexity (38 parameters, 31 actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse to be complete. It provides a useful high-level orientation but omits action-to-parameter mappings, required DAP adapter configuration, and return payload details. An agent would need substantial external DAP knowledge to invoke this correctly across actions.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% across 38 parameters, and the description barely compensates. It states that actions take 'their camelCase parameters' and calls out sessionId's default, but does not map actions to their required or relevant parameters. For a tool with this many parameters, an agent has almost no semantic guidance beyond raw parameter names.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly identifies the tool as a DAP control surface and explains that calls consist of an action plus its parameters, which distinguishes it from generic debugger operations. It is specific about the protocol (DAP) and the action-driven invocation model. It stops short of a 5 because there are no siblings to differentiate against, so the comparative clarity can't earn full credit.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides useful usage context: sessions are started via launch/attach and are targeted by sessionId, defaulting to the focused session. This gives an agent actionable guidance on how to invoke it. There are no explicit when-not or alternative-tool statements, but with no sibling tools that is less critical.

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