debug_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds value by listing the reported contents (paused, breakpoints, current instruction), which is the only source of return-shape information since no output schema exists. It stops short of stating behavior when the debugger is not paused or whether breakpoints are a count versus a list.

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 terse fragment with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too clipped (no verb) but every word 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so only as a bare field list. For a zero-parameter read-only status call this is close to adequate, but edge-case behavior (debugger not paused, empty breakpoint set) is unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 names the resource (debugger state) and enumerates the key fields it reports: paused status, breakpoints, and current instruction. It is distinguishable from mutating siblings like debug_pause, debug_step, and debug_continue, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'report' or 'return'.

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 guidance on when to call this versus debug_pause, debug_continue, or debug_step, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the debugger must be attached or running). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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