quit_gdb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the default behavior, the effect of kill_gdb=True, and the fact that the debugged process is terminated alongside gdb. This is strong transparency for a detach/quit operation, though it does not describe session cleanup or return behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional destructive behavior and default are stated in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation support, so the description must carry the full context. While the core detach/quit behavior is covered, session_id is unexplained, and the description does not state what happens to the session after detaching or whether detaching is reversible. These are material omissions for correct invocation in a multi-session debugging context.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It fully explains kill_gdb, including its default, but never mentions session_id at all. An agent receives no semantic guidance for a parameter that likely selects which gdb session to detach, which is a significant gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Detach the MCP plugin from gdb.' It then clarifies the optional destructive variant with kill_gdb, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like kill_session. The behavior is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies when to set kill_gdb by explaining that the default leaves the externally launched gdb running. However, it never explicitly addresses when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as kill_session or wait_for_stop. The guidance is present but only implicit.

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