get_debugger_state

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-mutating operation. The description adds value by detailing the returned state components (pause reason, hit breakpoints, call stack), helping the agent anticipate the response. It doesn't mention edge cases like behavior when not paused, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then lists specifics in a compact list-style format. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope. It names the key elements of the debugger state, making it complete for a read-only state getter.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output instead, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 'Get current debugger state' and enumerates specific elements: paused status, pause reason, hit breakpoints, and full call stack with file/line info. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling debugger 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?

The description provides clear context on what the tool offers (current state information), making it straightforward for an agent to decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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