debugger_close

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's real contribution is disclosing WHAT is destroyed in each mode: the target process is terminated, the attachment is detached, or the dump is released. That consequence-level detail is exactly the context annotations cannot convey. It still omits side effects like whether breakpoints or session state are discarded, and how failures are reported.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three closure modes are packed into one compact clause. It is efficient, though its terseness pushes semantic load onto the reader.

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?

An output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety profile, so the description need not repeat them. What is missing for a destructive session-teardown tool is guidance on timeout behavior, idempotency, and what happens if the session is already gone or invalid — gaps that matter given the mutation risk.

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 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. The required session_id — the only identifier needed to invoke the tool — is left to be inferred from its name, with no statement of accepted format or where to obtain it (presumably from debugger_sessions). The timeout parameter is only described inside the schema $defs, not in the description.

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 (close) and enumerates the three modes of closure — terminating a launched target, detaching from an attached process, releasing a dump — which correspond to the debugger session types a caller could have opened via debugger_launch, debugger_attach, or debugger_open_dump. It distinguishes the tool by resource and action; only sibling differentiation by name is absent.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is the teardown step for any open debugger session, and the three modes imply it applies regardless of how the session was created. However, it never says when to use it versus alternatives such as leaving a session open, nor does it warn that an open session may need closing before launching another.

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