jdwp-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (caught vs uncaught, class patterns) but omits important behavioral context: whether this persists across sessions, interaction with existing breakpoints, immediate side effects, or return values (critical given no output schema).

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?

Extremely efficient single sentence with zero waste. The main action ('Break on exceptions') is front-loaded, and the parenthetical concisely encapsulates the three parameter semantics. 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?

Given low schema coverage (33%), no output schema, and the complex stateful nature of debug breakpoint management, the description is minimal viable. It covers the filtering logic but misses session prerequisites, persistence behavior, and what occurs when the breakpoint triggers.

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 coverage is low at 33% (only class_pattern has a description). The description compensates effectively by mentioning 'caught/uncaught' and 'by class', adding semantic meaning for all three parameters that the schema lacks for the boolean flags. It clarifies the optional nature of class filtering.

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 verb (Break) and resource (exceptions), with specific scope details (caught/uncaught, by class) that distinguish it from sibling tools like debug.set_breakpoint. It loses one point because it could more explicitly signal that this configures a breakpoint policy rather than triggering an immediate break.

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 parenthetical '(caught/uncaught, optionally by class)' implies the specific use case (exception filtering), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus debug.set_breakpoint or prerequisites like requiring an active debug session. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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