Launch a Node script under the debugger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the pause-at-first-line handshake, the resume condition tied to stop_on_entry, and the destructive side effect that any previous session is torn down. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether existing breakpoints survive the teardown, or what a caller gets back.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the invocation form first, then the pause/resume lifecycle, then the teardown warning. Nothing is padded and the most important operational fact is front-loaded.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema, unannotated launch tool, the description covers the launch and pause lifecycle well enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is that with no output schema and no annotations, it never hints at the returned session state or how the torn-down previous session affects existing breakpoints.

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%, so cwd, env, args, script, node_args and stop_on_entry are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description echoes script, args and stop_on_entry but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description gives a concrete verb+resource ('Start `node <script> [args]` with the inspector attached') and the title reinforces the scope ('Launch a Node script under the debugger'). The word 'Start' implicitly separates it from the sibling 'attach', which implies binding to an already-running process.

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?

Usage context is implied by the lifecycle statement ('Any previous session is torn down first'), which signals that this is not additive to an existing session, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer launch over attach or when it is inappropriate to call. No exclusions or named alternatives are given.

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