jdwp-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the breakpoint_id doesn't exist), side effects on the debugging session, or whether the removal is immediate.

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 six words with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and wastes no space, while remaining grammatically complete.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotations and no schema descriptions, it should explain error conditions or reference debug.list_breakpoints for obtaining valid IDs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description minimally compensates by indicating the parameter represents an 'ID'. However, it does not specify where to obtain this ID (e.g., from debug.list_breakpoints), expected format, or validation rules.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('breakpoint'), specifying the mechanism ('by ID'). While clear about the core action, it lacks explicit scope clarification (e.g., active session requirement) and explicit differentiation from siblings like debug.set_breakpoint seen in tier-5 examples.

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, prerequisites such as an active debug session, or workflow context (e.g., typically used after debug.list_breakpoints).

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