get_debugger_state

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

Without annotations, the description takes full burden. It discloses the return contents (paused state, reason, breakpoints, call stack). However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation or any prerequisites like the debugger being attached.

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?

Single sentence, highly concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though an output schema could further clarify structure.

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?

No parameters exist (baseline 4). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. It adds value by describing the output, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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's purpose: 'Get current debugger state' and lists specific data it returns (paused state, pause reason, hit breakpoints, call stack). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_scope_variables' or 'list_breakpoints'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_breakpoints' or 'get_scope_variables'. The description implies usage for general state inspection but lacks direct comparisons or conditions.

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