disconnect_remote_debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe what happens during disconnection (e.g., whether debug sessions terminate, if editor remains responsive, potential side effects). For a tool that presumably changes system state, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the essential action. 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a presumably state-changing tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about effects, prerequisites, and relationship to sibling tools like 'connect_remote_debugger' and 'stop_project' for a complete understanding.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the action ('Disconnect from') and target ('the Godot editor's remote debugger'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'connect_remote_debugger' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify complementary relationship.

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 or prerequisites. It doesn't mention whether this should be used after debugging sessions, what happens if called when not connected, or how it relates to 'connect_remote_debugger' and 'stop_project' siblings.

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