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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate side effects (none expected), execution requirements (e.g., whether the VM must be suspended), output format, or whether this works pre- or post-attach.

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?

The description is extremely concise at only four words with zero redundancy. While efficient, it may be overly terse for the complexity of a debugging environment with 25+ tools, lacking the contextual padding necessary for agent decision-making.

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 debugging domain (24 siblings) but zero input parameters, the description should compensate with details about output format, invocation timing, or prerequisites. It provides only the bare minimum identifier of the tool's function.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rules. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters since none exist.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and object ('JVM version info'), clearly stating the tool's basic function. However, with 24 sibling debug tools (including debug.inspect, debug.snapshot), it fails to differentiate when to retrieve VM info versus other debugging metadata.

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 tool versus alternatives like debug.find_class or debug.inspect, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the debugger must be attached to a JVM first.

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