End the debug session

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses that a launched process is killed while an attached one is merely detached and resumed if paused, plus that breakpoints persist across sessions. It does not cover state-loss risk, required session preconditions, or whether the tool errors when no session exists, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentence plus a short persistence note; the mode distinction is front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs (kill vs detach, resume behavior, breakpoint retention). No filler.

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 zero-parameter session-teardown tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral outcomes and persistence of breakpoints. It omits edge cases such as calling it when no session is active, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter concepts, since there is nothing to configure, and the mode behavior is determined by session context rather than arguments.

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?

Names the specific action (ending a debug session) and splits it into its two real behaviors: killing a launched process vs detaching from an attached one. The mode-dependent framing tells the agent it is a terminal session operation, distinct from siblings like pause, continue, or set_breakpoint.

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?

The description implies this is the way to end a session, but it never states when to call it versus siblings (e.g. does the agent need pause/continue first, or is it valid at any time?). Usage is inferable from the teardown semantics rather than spelled out.

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