Run Until Debug Stop or Exit

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

The description explains the meaningful behavioral side effects beyond the annotations: launch mode executes application code, attach mode changes debugger control of an existing process, and normal target side effects may occur before stopping. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true while adding practical context about what changes on the target.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core behavior, usage boundaries, side-effect warning, and return summary. Key limitations are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned: request result, terminal/stopped outcome, session status, and a bounded snapshot only on a stopped event. It also covers prerequisites, side effects, and forbidden usage contexts, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the structured schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a high-level note that the snapshot is bounded and only captured on a stopped event, which reinforces the schema, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 names a specific verb and resource: running one live launch or attach through an initialized DAP adapter until a terminal event. It also distinguishes the tool from postmortem workflows, so an agent can understand scope and avoid confusing it with dump or diagnostic 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('when you need deterministic runtime evidence from a reproduction') and when not to use it ('do not use it for a postmortem dump or when executing/attaching to the local target is not authorized'). This provides clear selection guidance without needing to infer from sibling names.

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