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 and does well by disclosing prerequisites (active DAP connection), optimal usage context (debuggee stopped at breakpoint), and scope of data retrieved. It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or performance impacts, but covers key behavioral aspects for a debugging tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and data scope, second gives prerequisites, third provides usage context. Front-loaded with core functionality, no wasted words, and structured logically from general to specific.

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 debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete—it covers purpose, prerequisites, optimal usage, and data scope. It doesn't describe the return format or error cases, but given the context and sibling tools, it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting. No compensation is needed given high coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('live debugging snapshot from a connected DAP session'), specifying what data is obtained (threads, call stack, scopes, local variables with values). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect_dap' (prerequisite) and 'step_debugger' (action vs. inspection).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Most useful when the debuggee is stopped at a breakpoint') and prerequisites ('Requires an active DAP connection (call `connect_dap` first)'). It also implies alternatives by naming a sibling tool for the prerequisite, providing clear context for usage.

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