java_debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavior: the tool creates suspensions and mandates cleanup/resume, which is beyond schema information. However, it does not disclose other potential effects (e.g., attaching to JVM, port usage, or that breakpoints may alter execution). The explicit cleanup warning is valuable but incomplete for a tool with 28 parameters and multiple actions.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately state the critical safety requirement. There is zero redundancy, and the instruction about resuming/cleaning up is placed where it deserves emphasis. Every word contributes to the tool's correct usage.

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?

The description is quite sparse for a tool of this complexity (28 parameters, multiple actions, nested objects). It doesn't outline a typical workflow (e.g., set breakpoint → wait_event → stack → resume) or clarify how the action enum relates to the parameters. The schema individually documents parameters but doesn't tie them together. The description provides a high-level overview and a safety rule, but an agent would need to infer the sequence from parameter names and enum choices. This is only partially complete.

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 each parameter already has a thorough description in the schema. The main tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that; it only reinforces the cleanup requirement. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific purpose: 'Observe executed paths and runtime state with breakpoints, exception events, stacks, and variables.' This clearly identifies the tool as a debugger. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like java_fast_test or java_application, but the function is evident and distinct, so it earns a 4 for being clear without explicit sibling 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?

The description includes a critical usage directive: 'Always resume or clean up every suspension.' This is a direct guideline for correct operation, but it does not address when to choose this tool over alternatives. There's no mention of usage context (e.g., 'when you need to debug', or 'instead of java_fast_test'). It provides implied usage context but no explicit selection guidance.

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