disconnect_debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the most important behavioral trait: this tool only detaches the UI and does not terminate processes/debuggers. It is somewhat terse and does not describe reconnect behavior or what happens to existing debug sessions, but the core side-effect profile is transparent.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the critical non-destructive qualifier is placed at the end for emphasis. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, this description is largely sufficient: it names the action, the target, and the key side effect. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what happens to attached targets or how to reconnect, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; there is no parameter-level information the description needs to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('detach'), names a clear resource ('the MCP debugger UI'), and states the key non-effect ('without stopping 1C or dbgs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detach_targets, which likely detach debug targets rather than the UI.

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 phrase 'without stopping 1C or dbgs' implies the intended use case: disconnecting the debugger UI while preserving the underlying processes/sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as detach_targets or connect_debugger, nor does it mention exclusions.

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