jdwp-mcp

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and successfully discloses the immediate-return/async nature and the coordination pattern with trace_result. However, lacks details on trace persistence, overhead, or cancellation behavior that would be useful for a debugging tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed immediately by critical behavioral context (returns immediately) and workflow instruction. 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?

Sufficient for a 3-parameter tool with complete schema documentation and no output schema. Covers the essential workflow gap (how to get results). Could improve by noting performance implications of tracing or trace duration limits.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all 3 parameters (aggregate mode, include_args with performance note, class_pattern example). Description mentions 'class/package' which aligns with class_pattern but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 (trace) on specific resource (method calls) with scope (class/package). Effectively distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming debug.trace_result as the companion tool to retrieve results, clarifying this is the setup action.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Returns immediately' establishes async behavior, and 'use debug.trace_result to get the call path' names the exact alternative/companion tool for the next step. Clear when to use this vs the result-fetching sibling.

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