jdwp-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the blocking/waiting nature ('Wait for'), but lacks critical behavioral details: what happens when timeout_ms expires (exception vs silent return?), what the tool returns (void vs class info?), and whether this is a one-time wait or persistent hook.

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?

Perfect two-sentence structure. First sentence states action, second states usage condition. Zero waste, front-loaded with the core verb, appropriate length for the tool 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case well but leaves gaps on timeout failure modes and return values. For a blocking operation with timeout, the agent needs to know if this throws on timeout or returns a boolean/status.

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 50%. The schema provides excellent examples for class_pattern ('e.g. com.example.MyService or *MyService'), but timeout_ms has no schema description. The description mentions 'class' (aligning with class_pattern) but does not compensate for the undocumented timeout_ms parameter or explain the default 30s behavior.

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?

Excellent: specific verb 'Wait' + resource 'class to be loaded by the JVM'. The second sentence distinguishes from sibling tool set_breakpoint by specifying the exact failure condition ('class not found') that triggers this tool's use.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance: 'Use when set_breakpoint says class not found.' This provides a clear conditional trigger and references the specific sibling tool, creating an unambiguous decision path for the agent.

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