Disconnect Debugger

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that by explaining that the adapter process is stopped, that terminateDebuggee=true may kill a live target, that the operation destroys current runtime state, and that it cannot be treated as read-only. This is rich, specific 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core function, the usage timing, and the destructive caveat. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong destructive annotations, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: what it does, when to use it, when not to use it, and what side effects to expect. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema already fully explains terminateDebuggee's true/false behavior. The description adds a cautionary note about state destruction, but this mostly reinforces the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, concrete action—'End the active DAP session and stop its local adapter process'—making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools that run, continue, or diagnose, because it is a terminal cleanup operation rather than a debug-stepping action.

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 gives an explicit use case ('when debugging is finished or the session must be reset') and an explicit negative case ('do not call it when more runtime evidence is still needed'). Although it doesn't name an alternative tool, the condition is unambiguous and the sibling list supplies the obvious alternatives.

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