start_debugging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'start debugging' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., process spawning, resource allocation), authorization requirements, or whether the tool is idempotent. The minimal description leaves behavioral traits opaque.

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, which is concise but not optimally structured. It lacks front-loading of critical information or any hierarchical formatting. While not verbose, it could be expanded without losing conciseness to include more actionable details.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and many sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context on usage flow, prerequisites (e.g., sessionId must refer to an existing debug session), and expected outcomes. The current description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 33%, with only 'scriptPath' and 'adapterLaunchConfig' having descriptions. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameters. Key parameters like 'sessionId', 'args', 'dapLaunchArgs', and 'dryRunSpawn' remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Start debugging a script' clearly states the verb (start) and resource (debugging a script), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_debug_session' or 'attach_to_process'. It is specific to script-based debugging but lacks context on how it differs from other debug initialization tools.

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. For example, it does not mention that a session must be created first via 'create_debug_session', nor does it indicate whether this tool is for single-file scripts or complex projects. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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