DebugTerminate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the out-of-band constraint (outside batch mode), but labels a terminate/teardown operation as "[read-only]", which is internally misleading, and says nothing about what state is destroyed, whether unsaved debuggee state or the state_handle becomes invalid, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no wasted prose. The bracketed tags are compact but the "[read-only]" tag spends space on a claim that misleads rather than clarifies.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent still cannot tell what happens to the session/state_handle after termination or how this differs from DebugStop. Those omissions matter for a debugger teardown call.

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 description coverage is 100%, including an enum for `detail` and a documented `state_handle`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about how the handle relates to the terminated debuggee, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (ends) and resource (the stopped debuggee and its program), making the effect of the call clear. It does not explicitly contrast with neighbors like DebugStop or DebugWait, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Runs outside batch mode" is a real usage constraint, and "the stopped debuggee" implies a pre-existing stopped debug session is required. However, it never says when to choose DebugTerminate over DebugStop or how to resume/handle remaining sessions afterwards, so guidance stops at implied context.

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