get_debugger_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only lists what state is returned. It says nothing about whether the tool waits for a stop, what timeoutMs does on expiry, whether it errors without an attached session, or what compact vs debug output modes change.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, but the terseness comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail rather than being a model of tight completeness.

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 state-read tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify session requirements, timeout behavior and response-mode effects. It covers only the high-level return categories, leaving the operational contract largely unstated.

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% for three parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The timeoutMs default/max and the responseMode enum ('compact'/'debug') are especially opaque, since they determine latency and return shape, yet are unexplained anywhere.

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 verb and resource ('Read debugger state') and enumerates the content returned: current stop plus breakpoint/cleanup status. That distinguishes it reasonably from get_debugger_stack, get_debugger_locals and get_debugger_capabilities, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. an attached debug session), and no mention of alternatives such as wait_for_debugger_event for blocking on a stop. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.

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