Disconnect Debugger

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds valuable context: it ends the session, stops the adapter process, may terminate a live target with terminateDebuggee=true, and explicitly warns that runtime state can be destroyed. This meaningfully exceeds the annotation signal.

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: the first states the core operation, the second provides usage guidance, and the third warns about destructive behavior. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

With two well-documented optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations already covering safety traits, the description covers purpose, appropriate usage, and destructive consequences. Nothing needed to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds some interpretation around terminateDebuggee's destructive potential, but the schema already explains the detach/preserve behavior, so the description provides only marginal added value.

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 states a specific verb ('End') and resource ('active DAP session') plus the local adapter process, making the operation's scope unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like debug_continue or debug_snapshot even without naming them.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use when debugging is finished or must be reset, and do not call when more runtime evidence is needed. It does not name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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