debug_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait—execution halts before user code so breakpoints can be set—but says nothing about the 15s timeout and what happens on expiry, whether the process persists across later debug_* calls, or how launch failures surface.

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?

One tight sentence with the verb and the key behavioral constraint front-loaded; nothing redundant. It is efficient but so short that concision shades into under-specification.

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 7-parameter launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is not enough. The agent lacks lifecycle, timeout, failure-mode, and parameter-role information needed to invoke this correctly within a multi-step debug workflow.

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 only 57%, leaving args, timeout, and stop_on_entry undocumented anywhere. The description does not compensate, and it never clarifies the interaction between its 'pause before user code' claim and the stop_on_entry flag, which is a likely source of confusion.

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 and resource ('Launch a Python program under debugpy') plus a scope detail (pause before user code). It implicitly separates launch-vs-attach from the sibling debug_attach, but never names that alternative explicitly.

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 on when to choose this over debug_attach or debug_python_repro, nor any stated prerequisites (debugpy installed, target being a script vs module). The implied usage is 'starting a new debug session,' but nothing tells the agent when not to call it.

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