dolphin_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about whether requests mutate debuggee state, how timeoutMs affects blocking, what awaitEvent does, or how errors/unsupported commands are surfaced, for a tool whose side effects are entirely command-dependent.

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 sentences with zero filler and the core purpose front-loaded, so structure is clean. But for a complex escape-hatch tool with four undocumented parameters, this brevity tips into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

This is a high-complexity, command-agnostic protocol tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, yet the description explains neither request/response shape nor parameter behavior. An agent cannot confidently construct a DAP request from this description alone.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for command, arguments, timeoutMs, or awaitEvent. The nested arguments object and the awaitEvent string are especially opaque; the agent gets no help on accepted command values or the semantic difference between awaiting an event and a bare response.

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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (standard or Dolphin-specific DAP request), and the phrase 'complete protocol escape hatch' signals this is the generic fallback relative to the specialized siblings like dolphin_execution and dolphin_stack. It doesn't name a specific sibling, but the scope ('any standard or Dolphin-specific DAP request') is clear enough to distinguish it from the targeted tools.

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?

'This is the complete protocol escape hatch' implies the tool is for cases the specialized request tools do not cover, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states explicitly when to prefer this over dolphin_execution, dolphin_variables, etc., nor any prerequisite or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the fallback role.

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