start_debugging

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the input schema by stating the program runs until a breakpoint or completion. However, no annotations are provided, and it lacks disclosure of side effects, required permissions, or what happens if no breakpoints are set.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and behavior. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (including a session ID) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the required workflow (e.g., session must be created first, breakpoints set), prerequisites, or what the return value indicates.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the relationship between 'sessionId' and 'scriptPath' or the purpose of optional parameters like 'stopOnEntry'.

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 clearly states the tool starts debugging a script file and specifies the behavior until breakpoint or completion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint' or 'continue', but does not explicitly differentiate from 'create_debug_session', which is a prerequisite.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'continue', 'step_over', etc. It does not mention that a debug session must first be created via 'create_debug_session', nor that breakpoints should be set prior to starting.

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