debug_launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Returns the resulting session state' without detailing behavior such as what happens on failure, whether the call blocks, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a tool that initiates a debug session.

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 a single sentence that accomplishes its goal without extraneous words. Every word contributes to stating the purpose and return value.

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?

The description fails to cover important contextual details: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., .NET runtime), side effects, error states, or explanation of 'session state'. With no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., env explains ASP.NET Core configuration). The description itself adds no new parameter information beyond the first sentence, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance it.

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 tool 'Launch a .NET program under the debugger' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like debug_attach (attaching to an existing process) and debug_continue.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies launching a new debug session, the description does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools like debug_attach.

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