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. It fails to disclose whether this is read-only, what data structure is returned (field names only? values? types?), or any side effects. The term 'Inspect' is vague regarding the actual output format.

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 concise at only 5 words, front-loaded with the action verb. While efficient, the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of contextual completeness for a complex debugging operation. No redundant words, but arguably underspecified.

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 the rich sibling toolset (24 alternatives) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to clarify what 'inspection' yields or how it fits into the debugger workflow. Without output schema, the description should indicate return structure.

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 100% schema description coverage ('hex e.g. 0x1a3f'), the schema adequately documents the parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond labeling it 'object ID', which is already implied by the parameter name. Baseline score appropriate for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('object fields') with clear scope ('by object ID'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `debug.get_variable` or `debug.eval`, which might also retrieve object information through different mechanisms.

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?

Description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the 24 sibling debug tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debug session) or when to prefer this over `get_variable` or `snapshot`.

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