End User-Space Debugging

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining detach vs terminate behavior, protocol-completion waiting, terminal-mode restoration, harmless shell probing, recovery-failure session closure, and retry safety. These details are consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core action and then covering defaults, side effects, failure handling, and retry behavior. Every sentence adds operational value without filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, available output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides enough detail for an agent to call it correctly. It covers default behavior, termination constraints, terminal restoration, failure consequences, and retry semantics.

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 owner, debug_id, and terminate are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces terminate semantics and adds little new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'End debugging.' It immediately distinguishes this from debug_start/debug_command/debug_events by describing session termination behavior, and an agent can identify it as the teardown counterpart without opening the schema.

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 gives clear invocation context: detach by default, terminate only for launched processes, and safe retry. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as debug_bridge_close or terminal_session_detach, but the usage conditions for this tool are stated clearly.

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