jdwp-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dependency workflow (must run after debug.trace) and hints at output format ('call path with depth'). However, missing critical behavioral details: it doesn't describe that results are consumed/retrieved, doesn't explain the 'aggregate mode' mentioned in schema parameters, and omits error behavior when trace hasn't been initialized.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and prerequisite; second sentence clarifies output content. Every word earns its place. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Acceptable completeness given 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description compensates for missing output schema by describing return content ('call path with depth'). However, lacks completeness regarding stateful error conditions (what happens if called without prior debug.trace) and doesn't clarify the consumption pattern of the trace results.

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 both 'clear' and 'min_ms' fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, relying entirely on structured schema documentation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas where description doesn't need to compensate.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') + resource ('collected trace') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'debug.trace' by stating this retrieves results 'after' that tool runs. Also specifies output content ('call path with depth').

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?

Implies prerequisite usage through 'after debug.trace', indicating temporal dependency. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use (e.g., before trace is started), error conditions if trace isn't active, or relationship to the 'clear' parameter's side effects.

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