dbg_start

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Start a debug session' but omits important behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., launching a process), error conditions, or whether it can be called multiple times. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, no filler. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness for important parameters and usage guidance. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 9 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to use optional parameters like 'source' or 'pid', nor what return value to expect. This is insufficient for a complex start-up tool.

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%; the description only adds meaning for 'mode' and 'debugger' by listing their enum values. The other 7 parameters (program, source, pid, args, cwd, env, stop_on_entry) are left unexplained, so the agent lacks context for their use.

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 'Start a debug session' and lists the two key parameters (mode and debugger) with their allowed values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other debug actions like stepping or continuing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a program must exist for launch mode) or exclusions (e.g., when already in a session). Sibling tools imply this is the starting point, but no explicit instructions.

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