Debugging MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the debuggee continues running (non-destructive), the tool is idempotent (safe for repeated calls), and it handles disconnection cleanly. This provides clear context beyond basic functionality.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying sentences that add critical behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple disconnection with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (non-termination, idempotency), and confirms no parameters needed, providing all necessary context for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms no parameters are needed by describing the action without mentioning any inputs, which aligns perfectly with the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('cleanly disconnects') and resource ('current DAP session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect_dap' or 'terminate' operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('cleanly disconnects from the current DAP session') and when not to use it ('The debuggee continues running — this does NOT terminate it'). It also provides an alternative context by mentioning idempotency, which helps differentiate from tools that might terminate sessions.

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