connect_debugger

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

With no annotations, the description at least discloses the main side effects: it replaces any active MCP debug session and explicitly never stops 1C. However, it does not cover permission needs, failure behavior, or what happens to the replaced session beyond 'replaces'.

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 no filler; the core register-for-alias action is front-loaded and the replacement/safety caveat is in the second sentence.

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 side-effecting, no-annotation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the high-level purpose and one caveat are insufficient. An agent still lacks knowledge of return values, failure modes, prerequisites, and sourceRoot's role.

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%, and the description only maps to 'infoBaseAlias' via 'infobase alias'. host, port, and sourceRoot receive no added meaning, leaving required network/connection semantics unexplained.

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 action ('register') on a specific resource ('this MCP as debugger UI for one infobase alias'), so an agent can tell it is the tool that establishes debugger registration. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, and 'debugger UI' is slightly idiom-dependent, so not a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to call it or when to prefer a sibling such as disconnect_debugger, check_debug_server, or set_auto_attach. The replacing/not-stopping sentence is behavioral context, not usage direction.

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