jdwp-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only adds that variables are included, but omits critical behavior: thread selection logic, response format, depth limits, and performance characteristics of variable capture.

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 brief at four words, but underspecified rather than efficiently concise. Front-loaded information is present, but the extreme brevity represents missing specification, not appropriate restraint.

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?

Inadequate for a 4-parameter debugging tool with no output schema. Missing: thread context requirements, variable scoping details, return value structure, and pagination behavior. Description length is disproportionate to interface complexity.

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 only implicitly addresses include_variables ('with variables'). It fails to explain max_frames, max_variable_depth, or the crucial thread_id parameter, leaving three-quarters of the interface undocumented.

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?

States the basic operation (getting stack frames) and mentions variables, but lacks specificity about which thread (current vs specified) and doesn't differentiate from similar inspection tools like debug.inspect or debug.get_variable.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, prerequisites (e.g., paused thread), or when variable inclusion might be expensive.

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