jdwp-mcp

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

Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden. Adds valuable context that output includes 'line ranges', but omits critical behavioral traits like whether an active debug session is required, error handling when class not found, or read-only safety.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded verb, immediately conveys scope and output format. 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?

For a single-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (methods with line ranges), compensating for missing structured output documentation. Could mention attachment requirements.

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 coverage (class_pattern has example), baseline is 3. Description mentions 'class' which aligns with parameter, but does not clarify what 'pattern' means (wildcards allowed?) or add syntax details beyond schema example.

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 specific action (List) and resource (methods of a class) with output detail (line ranges). Mentions 'class' which helps distinguish from thread/breakpoint siblings, though could be clearer on distinction from debug.inspect.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus debug.inspect or debug.find_class, nor any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring active debug session).

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