jdwp-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies read-only access but the description does not confirm whether the operation is safe, if it blocks the debuggee, or what thread attributes are exposed (IDs, names, states, stack traces).

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 (three words) which prevents waste, but crosses into under-specification territory given the complexity of the debug domain. Front-loaded but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the debugging workflow.

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 debugging tool with no output schema. Fails to describe the return structure (thread IDs, states, metadata) or clarify whether this lists all live threads or includes terminated threads. Missing operational context critical for debugging scenarios.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, meeting the baseline score of 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 action (list) and resource (threads) but lacks specificity about what 'threads' refers to in this debugging context (e.g., VM threads vs OS threads) and does not differentiate from sibling list operations like list_breakpoints or list_methods.

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 invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate typical workflows (e.g., that this should be used before select_thread to identify thread IDs).

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