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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: a thread-polling handshake, attach failure plus proxy teardown on verifyTimeout, and the async pending:true pause semantics. However, it omits other behavioral essentials for a mutation-style session tool, such as required permissions or what the response object contains. Solid partial disclosure, not complete.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in a short first sentence. The second sentence, however, is a dense run-on with nested clauses ('accepted but no stopped event arrives within its bounded wait... pending:true; the late event alone changes the session...') that is hard to parse for what is essentially a two-state edge case. Informative but structurally heavy.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a nested adapterConfig object, the description plus the very rich schema entries cover most of what an agent needs, and no output schema exists so return-state description (running/paused, pending) is a genuine plus. The gap is that overall response shape and side-effect scope are not summarized, leaving it just short of fully self-sufficient.

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 11 parameters in depth. The description's mentions of verifyTimeout (~20s default) and post-attach pause duplicate what the schema says rather than adding syntax or meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach to a running process for debugging.' That clearly separates it from siblings like launch-oriented tools and from detach_from_process. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g. create_debug_session or start_debugging), so it is clear but not differentiating.

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 when-to-use guidance in the description itself: no prerequisites, no statement of when attaching is preferable to launching, and no named alternative. The useful conditional advice ('required when attaching to a live service') lives in the stopOnEntry schema entry, not the description. An agent gets context only by reading the schema.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral traits: idempotency ('Clearing zero breakpoints is success') and immediate effect regardless of run state ('Takes effect immediately while the program is running or paused'). It omits error conditions, required session state, and return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the two behavioral notes. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, idempotency, and timing adequately. It stops short of stating error cases or whether the session must be active, which would complete the picture.

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 50%: the 'file' parameter is already documented in the schema, while the required 'sessionId' has no schema description. The description only vaguely covers session scope ('in a session') and adds little beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove all breakpoints) plus the scope options (entire session vs one file). The word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the singular remove_breakpoint sibling, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 scope phrasing ('all breakpoints in a session, or all breakpoints in one file') implies when this bulk-clear is appropriate versus the singular remove_breakpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but fails to mention side effects, error conditions, or any impact on the session state.

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 very concise (one sentence, four words) and front-loaded. However, it may be too terse for completeness, but conciseness itself is a strength.

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 simple interface (1 required param, no output schema), the description lacks enough context to be fully self-contained. With many sibling tools, additional usage context would be helpful.

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 single parameter 'sessionId' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation about its meaning, source, or format. The schema only specifies type and requiredness.

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 action (close) and the resource (a debugging session), directly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_debug_session or list_debug_sessions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., session must exist), or alternatives. The agent is given no context for appropriate usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the asynchronous, non-blocking return ('returns immediately after the adapter acknowledges; does not wait'), and the state transition to 'paused' on the next stop. It omits error/failure behavior and any permission requirements, so it is not fully complete.

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, front-loaded with the core verb and the crucial non-blocking caveat, then follow-up guidance. The get_output sentence is slightly tangential but still useful, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior (async return, pause state) and next-step tooling well. The main gap is the undocumented sessionId, which for a stateful debug control tool is a meaningful omission.

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 single sessionId parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or its format/origin. Nothing compensates for the schema's silence, leaving the most important input semantically undocumented.

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?

States a specific action (continue execution) on an implicit debug session resource, which maps cleanly onto a debugger resume. The contrast with sibling step_over/step_into/pause_execution is implied by the non-blocking resume semantics rather than named explicitly, so an agent can mostly but not fully distinguish it from the schema alone.

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?

Gives a clear usage flow: returns immediately, does not wait for the next stop, and directs the agent to list_debug_sessions/get_stack_trace on the following pause and to get_output for stdout/stderr. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g. versus step_over for single-instruction stepping), keeping it below a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that attaching pauses the target unless stopOnEntry is false, but says nothing about what the session creation returns (session id?), permission requirements, or failure behavior on connect timeout — meaningful gaps for a stateful tool with 9 parameters.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero filler, with the highest-value information (the two modes) front-loaded and the pause behavior trailing. Nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never indicates what a created session yields or how to reference it in later calls (e.g., list_debug_sessions, close_debug_session). Given 9 parameters, nested adapterConfig, and no annotations, the behavioral surface is only partially covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics (host+port jointly trigger attach mode), but the schema already labels each of those fields as 'triggers attach mode', so the incremental value is modest.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new debugging session') and immediately distinguishes two operating modes (attach vs launch). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like start_debugging and attach_to_process, which appear to overlap with its functionality.

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 a clear intra-tool rule: supply host/port to attach, omit them to launch. What it never says is when to pick this tool over start_debugging or attach_to_process, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces with 27 sibling tools on offer.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States the key behavioral trait (no termination) but does not disclose other effects (e.g., session validity, resource cleanup). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with action and key constraint. Highly concise.

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?

Simple tool with 2 params and no output schema. Description covers core action but lacks pre/post-conditions (e.g., must be attached) and return value. Acceptable for a straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters documented. Description adds minimal new meaning beyond confirming the 'without terminating it' behavior aligns with default of terminateProcess. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Detach') and resource ('debugged process') with a clarifying condition ('without terminating it'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like terminate or close.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like close_debug_session or terminate. The condition 'without terminating it' is present but not framed as a decision rule.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it warns that expressions can read and modify program state, discloses automatic thread switches or hidden paused frames via anchorNote, and states frame naming on both success and failure. It does not cover error semantics beyond the frame name or any permission/authorization context, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and each following clause adds distinct information (frame adoption, anchorNote disclosure, frame naming, wait default). The embedded em-dash aside about breakpoints and hidden frames is convoluted enough to slow parsing, costing it the top score.

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 4-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description compensates well by describing anchorNote, frame naming, and side-effect capability that an output schema would otherwise convey. Missing detail on failure modes other than frame naming and on timeout-expiry behavior (which is only in the schema) keeps it from 5.

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 coverage is 50%: frameId and timeout are already documented in the schema. The description usefully restates the no-frameId fallback behavior and the default wait, but adds nothing for sessionId or expression. Against the coverage baseline this lands at 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Evaluate expression in the current debug context') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by explaining that absent a frameId it adopts the same top frame as stack and locals. An agent can tell it apart from get_variables/get_stack_trace without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the key routing decision: pass an authoritative frameId from get_stack_trace to suppress automatic frame/thread selection, otherwise the adopted top frame is used. It implies but never explicitly says 'use this instead of locals when you need to compute or mutate an expression,' so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only enforcement, idempotency ('calling it again returns the same endpoint'), token requirement, and the full closure lifecycle (unexpose_session, close_debug_session, restart, debuggee exit). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation-adjacent 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?

It is longer than most descriptions but every sentence carries distinct information (capability, token, rejection semantics, lifecycle). The core purpose is front-loaded, though the density is high for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return values (host, port, session token) and the attach configuration requirement, and it covers lifecycle and control restrictions. An agent has everything needed to invoke and reason about the result.

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?

There is one required sessionId parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies an active session is needed and describes the returned token/host/port, but never states which session identifier to pass or how to obtain it, leaving the single parameter under-specified.

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 (Expose) and resource (a debug session) and defines the concrete output form: a read-only DAP mirror endpoint on 127.0.0.1. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like unexpose_session and close_debug_session by naming the lifecycle boundary.

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?

It states the exact use case (let an IDE attach as a second debug client), prerequisites (requires an active launched/attached session), and the when-not case (the mirror never drives execution; continue/step/pause and breakpoint changes are rejected). It also names the counterpart tool unexpose_session.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantively: it discloses frameless-thread handling, sibling preference/adoption with disclosure in a note, anchor semantics at breakpoints, and the empty-with-guidance fallback for JS frames. It omits error cases, permissions, and pagination specifics, but the edge-case disclosure is above average.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, which is good, but the following sentences are long and built on undefined jargon ('shared inspection anchor', 'note'), which reduces readability. Every sentence is doing work, but the density hurts comprehension.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the response shape and key concepts, yet 'anchor' and 'note' are never defined and the return structure is only partially implied. It covers edge cases adequately but leaves the agent guessing on core semantics.

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 coverage is 67%, with names and includeSpecial already documented in the schema. The description adds one genuine insight beyond the schema — that names:[...] is the workaround for size-guarded responses — but does not clarify sessionId or the broader fetch semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get local variables) and adds a distinguishing scope concept ('shared inspection anchor') that separates it from the sibling get_variables/get_scopes. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives behavioral context for specific situations (frameless thread, pause inside an internal frame, JS frame with no Local scope), which is useful guidance. But it never says when to call this tool versus get_variables or get_scopes, so routing to alternatives is left to inference.

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

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 per-launch buffering, the 1000-entry cap, telemetry/DWARF-noise filtering, and lifecycle limits. It omits permission or concurrency considerations, but the behavioral picture is otherwise rich.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then buffering behavior, then lifecycle window, then the pagination how-to. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the cursor field (nextSince) used for continuation and implying the entry-list return. Combined with the limit/hasMore schema text, an agent has enough to call and page correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description meaningfully compensates by explaining the cursor contract ('pass since=nextSince from the previous response to fetch only new output'), which ties into the pagination semantics. limit and sessionId remain schema-documented only.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (debuggee output: stdout/stderr/console) scoped to a session. Clearly distinguished from siblings like get_variables or get_stack_trace, which retrieve different data.

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?

Explains the temporal window ('works while running and after it finishes, until the session is closed') and how to page with since=nextSince, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is implied by the output-retrieval framing rather than stated as a choice among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior, but it only states 'Get scopes'. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return value represents. The tool's read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 very short (one sentence) and concise, but it is too brief to be informative. It is not verbose, but the minimalism comes at the cost of completeness.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., having a stack trace), return values, or how it differs from similar tools. The complexity of the debugging context demands more detail.

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 50% with only frameId having a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, and sessionId remains undocumented. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (Get) and resource (scopes) with a specific context (for a stack frame), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stack_trace or get_variables. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_local_variables or get_variables. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid file/line, or what errors occur. The behavior is minimally implied but not explicitly described.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and clear. It is concise but at the expense of missing important details like output format and usage context.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., source lines, snippet). It also does not explain how it fits with sibling debug tools or any session requirements beyond the required sessionId parameter.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on sessionId or clarify parameter interactions. However, the schema already provides good descriptions for file, line, and linesContext.

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 'Get source context around a specific line in a file' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (source context) with specificity. It distinguishes from sibling debug tools, which focus on session management, breakpoints, stepping, etc., by focusing on source code retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_local_variables or evaluate_expression. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active debug session) or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses substantial behavior beyond the input schema: automatic adoption of a sibling thread when frameless, default filtering of internal frames, and the hiddenFrames/pausedFrame/note signaling. Missing is any mention of permissions or error behavior, but the response-contract disclosure is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose statement, and each sentence conveys contract detail. However, the sentences are long, comma-chained, and jargon-heavy, making the disclosure harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly (stopReason, hiddenFrames, pausedFrame, kept, note). The gap is that it does not ground the tool in the debugging workflow, but for a read tool it is substantially complete.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema largely documents threadId and includeInternals. The description reinforces threadId's authoritative, never-silently-switched semantics but adds little on sessionId or the exact meaning of includeInternals' frame categories. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

Opens with a clear verb+resource ("Get stack trace") and immediately scopes what the response contains (stopReason, frameless-thread handling, filtered frames). It never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_source_context or get_variables, so it loses the top mark, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for inspecting a paused session's call stack. It describes thread-selection behavior (explicit threadId is authoritative, implicit threads may be swapped) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: responses are size-guarded, oversized values are cut with truncated:true, and very large scopes return a capped list with a truncation notice. It stops short of documenting permissions, error cases, or the notFound behavior that only appears in the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core purpose and scope come first, followed by the truncation behavior and the names escape hatch. The em-dash-heavy phrasing is compact but still readable.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational risk (truncation) and the mitigation (names), which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid misreading results. The undocumented sessionId and lack of explicit sibling routing are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema itself documents names (including notFound) and scope thoroughly; the description largely restates scope and the names workaround. sessionId remains undocumented in both, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get variables") and pins the scope to a variablesReference number, so an agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_local_variables or get_scopes, which also return variable data.

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?

Provides a concrete usage hint — pass names:[...] to fetch specific variables in full when the scope is capped — which tells the agent how to work around truncation. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the sibling variable tools (get_local_variables, get_scopes, evaluate_expression), leaving tool selection to inference.

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

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 that unverified/queued breakpoints report verified=false, that function breakpoints surface separately as functionBreakpoints, and that they are omitted when filtering by file. It stops short of error or auth behavior, but the return-shape disclosure is valuable given no output schema.

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, no filler, and the core purpose plus return contents are front-loaded before the state/edge-case details. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, how function breakpoints are grouped, and the session states in which it works. Error handling is not covered, but the operational picture is otherwise complete.

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 'file' parameter is documented in the schema, and the description adds useful behavior around it (functionBreakpoints omitted under file filtering). 'sessionId' is undocumented in both places, matching the 50% coverage; the description implies session scoping but adds no format detail.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (breakpoints) scoped to a session, and adds what is returned (verified state, adapter-assigned ids). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_breakpoint, remove_breakpoint, and clear_breakpoints.

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?

Explains the temporal context in which it is valid (before launch, while running/paused, after exit) and notes the file-filtering mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the read-vs-mutate distinction against the breakpoint siblings is clear from the name and description.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important trait: paused sessions include lastStop with a reason (breakpoint vs exception), which is useful non-obvious context. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or how it interacts with session lifecycle.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a detail about paused session shape. No waste.

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 no-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what it returns (including lastStop for paused sessions) adequately. Lacks only pagination/activation caveats, but those are minor.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter info is needed or provided, and the description correctly stays silent on parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (active debugging sessions, with detail on paused sessions). Clear enough to distinguish from sibling create_debug_session or close_debug_session, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage is implied by 'List all active debugging sessions' — an agent would infer this is for enumerating sessions, but there's no mention of when to prefer this over create_debug_session or other tools.

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

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 the tool lists languages but discloses nothing about side effects (e.g., it is read-only, non-destructive), data freshness, or performance. For a simple list, this is a notable gap.

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, which is maximally concise. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' to immediately convey the action. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the return format or what 'metadata' includes, which would help an agent understand the output. It is complete enough for basic usage but not rich.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none, so this score is appropriate.

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 'List all supported debugging languages with metadata' clearly states the action (list), the resource (supported debugging languages), and that metadata is included. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all action-oriented debugging operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 20 sibling tools like 'start_debugging' or 'create_debug_session', it would be helpful to mention that this tool is useful before initiating debugging sessions to discover available languages, but no such context is given.

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

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

The description indicates a read-only listing operation. With no annotations, it provides minimal behavioral insight but does not contradict any known traits.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

While the description is adequate for a simple list operation, it lacks information about the output format (no output schema) and does not elaborate on what a 'thread' means in this context, which could be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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 single parameter 'sessionId' is not described beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about its purpose or format.

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 'list' and the resource 'all threads in the debugged process'. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like set_breakpoint or step_into.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stack_trace or get_variables. There is no mention of context or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the ~5s grace period, the pending:true success fallback for programs blocked in native code or idle servers, the deferred 'paused' state, and an actionable failure mode when no debuggable target exists. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 tightly packed sentences: the action first, then the async/pending semantics, then the failure mode. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 pause tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers runtime behavior and failure modes thoroughly, including the pending:true return. The one notable gap is that sessionId is undocumented and the description doesn't explain how to identify a valid debuggable session.

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 coverage is 50%: threadId is well documented in the schema ('omitted or 0 pauses all threads'), but sessionId has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning to compensate for that gap, so it fails to help the agent understand the required sessionId.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Pause a running program.' This cleanly separates it from continue_execution and the step_* siblings by name implication. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (pause a running program), and it describes the error condition when there is no debuggable target. However, it never states when to choose pause over step_over or continue_execution, nor any explicit exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full load, and it does well: it discloses the scan/match/redefine mechanism, the return payload, and an important side effect (statement-anchored breakpoints are re-resolved with moved/stale reporting via anchorResolution). It does not mention failure modes such as JDI's inability to change class schemas or permission requirements, which leaves a gap for a mutation 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before mechanism and side effects. Each sentence carries information (mechanism, return value, breakpoint side effect, constraint) with no filler, though the middle sentences are packed tightly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fills the gaps well by enumerating return values (redefined classes, newest timestamp) and behavior after the swap (anchorResolution moved/stale). It falls short only on failure conditions and environment requirements beyond 'Java debug sessions'.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining the incremental pattern for sinceTimestamp (newest returned timestamp feeds the next call). timeout and classesDir are left to the schema, and sessionId is undescribed in both places, but the added semantics for the key parameter are valuable.

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?

States a specific verb (hot-swap/redefine) and resource (changed Java .class files into a running JVM) and describes the mechanism (scan directory, match loaded classes, redefine via JDI). No sibling in the list does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Clearly states the prerequisite audience ('Only works with Java debug sessions') and explains the incremental-update workflow (pass the returned newest timestamp as sinceTimestamp on the next call). It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but no sibling tool overlaps in function, so the routing context is effectively clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the destruction scope ('removes all breakpoints at that location') and the lifecycle window in which the removal is honored. It omits failure behavior, e.g. what happens when no matching breakpoint exists or the id is stale.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the primary addressing mechanism and the immediate-effect semantics are front-loaded before the secondary lifecycle note.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers targeting and effect timing well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of error/confirmation behavior when no breakpoint matches.

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 80%, so the schema already documents each addressing field, including the function-name rewrite details and breakpointId precedence. The description restates the three modes but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a breakpoint) and enumerates three distinct addressing modes with their resolution sources, so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It references siblings set_breakpoint and list_breakpoints as id sources but never distinguishes itself from clear_breakpoints, which is the closest alternative for bulk removal.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the removal takes effect immediately while running or paused, and also works after the program exits but before a relaunch. It does not say when to prefer this over clear_breakpoints or how to choose among the three targeting modes when more than one applies.

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

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 destructive terminate step, automatic breakpoint re-application, get_output buffer reset ('read from since=0'), and the readiness-window return contract ('running' with pending:true). It omits permission/auth requirements, but behavioral coverage is otherwise strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then return contract. Every sentence earns its place — breakpoints, buffer reset, valid states, and exclusions are each distinct operational facts, not padding.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return shape ('Answers like start_debugging... running with pending:true'), which is what an agent needs to interpret the result. Combined with the state and exclusion rules, it is complete enough to call correctly; only sessionId semantics are unaddressed.

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?

One parameter (sessionId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not — sessionId semantics (which kind of session, relation to create/attach) are left to inference. The reference to sessions via exclusions implies context but adds no field-level meaning. Baseline 3 for a single obvious param.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Restart the debuggee') and immediately scopes it as 'terminate the current program... and relaunch it with the same configuration as the last start_debugging.' This distinguishes it from siblings like start_debugging (fresh config), continue_execution (resume), and attach_to_process (attach, which it explicitly excludes).

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?

Gives explicit when-it-works ('Works while running, paused, or after the program has exited') and when-not ('Not available for attach sessions or sessions never launched'). The reader knows exactly when to reach for this tool versus start_debugging or continue_execution.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does volunteer one real behavioral trait: breakpoints on structural/declarative lines cause unexpected stepping behavior. Beyond that caveat it says nothing about idempotency, persistence across restart_debugging, permission needs, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the hazard warning. It is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 10-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only one hazard. It omits session prerequisites, whether breakpoints persist, and what a successful call returns or how failures are reported.

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 90%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters in detail (statement, function, logMessage, expectedContent, suspendPolicy, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Set a breakpoint"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_breakpoint, clear_breakpoints, and list_breakpoints. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from create_debug_session or explain the line/function/statement addressing modes, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 caveat about non-executable lines functions as an implicit "when not to / watch out" rule, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no guidance on prerequisites (an active session), no mention of alternatives such as condition vs logMessage vs suspendPolicy, and no explicit routing against sibling breakpoint tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses the three terminal states of the first stop, the ~5s vs 30s readiness windows, the condition that selects each, and that debuggerDisabled can be set via nested launch args. It omits auth/permission needs and whether the session persists, but the return-state and timing disclosure is substantive context beyond any structured data.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, which is good, but the remainder is a single dense, em-dash-heavy paragraph that buries the 5s/30s distinction and the debuggerDisabled caveat mid-sentence. Every clause conveys real information, but the lack of structure hurts readability.

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 no output schema, the description does describe return states and timing well, covering the main post-call expectation. But it leaves the multi-param surface (7 params, 2 required) unexplained and gives no routing relative to the many sibling session tools, so it is adequate but not complete for a launch tool of this complexity.

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 43% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — args, sessionId, dryRunSpawn, and adapterLaunchConfig are undocumented in both places. All parameter detail lives in nested schema descriptions the top-level text never references, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ("Start debugging a script"), so an agent knows the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like create_debug_session, restart_debugging, or attach_to_process, so the agent cannot confidently choose between them from the description alone.

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 is only implied: the description explains what happens once launched (paused/stopped/running), which indirectly signals this is the launch entry point. It never states when to prefer this over create_debug_session or attach_to_process, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is inferential rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key runtime behavior: it waits briefly, times out after ~5s, returns state 'running' with pending:true, and later flips the session to 'paused'. It omits error/permission cases and whether a paused session is required, so it is not fully complete.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action, then the async/timeout semantics. No wasted words, though the em-dash clause packs several facts together and slightly hurts scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return state ('running', pending:true) and the eventual 'paused' transition. What remains missing is prerequisite/error context, but for a one-parameter step tool this is largely sufficient.

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 0% for the single sessionId parameter, and the description never explains it. However, sessionId is self-evident from the debug-session sibling family, so the gap is minor rather than crippling.

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?

States a specific debugger verb ('Step into') plus the target ('the current call'), which is directly distinguishable from the sibling step_over and step_out tools. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 is only implied: the description assumes the agent knows step_into means descend into the called function. There is no explicit when-to-use vs step_over/step_out guidance, nor any stated prerequisite that a session must be paused.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the ~5s wait, the timeout outcome (success with state 'running' and pending:true), and the eventual transition of the session to 'paused'. It omits error cases and whether a specific session state is required beforehand, but the async/timeout behavior is genuinely valuable information not available elsewhere.

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?

Front-loads the action ('Step out of the current function') before the timing behavior, and every clause earns its place. The second sentence is dense but conveys distinct, decision-relevant facts about the wait and return states.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return-state and timing behavior an agent needs to interpret results. What is missing is the precondition (session must be stopped/paused) and any failure modes, but for a one-parameter step action it is nearly complete.

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 0% and the single required sessionId parameter is never mentioned in the description. The parameter name is largely self-evident in this debugging-session toolset, so the gap is minor, but the description contributes no parameter semantics beyond the obvious.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Step out of the current function' with precise step-debugging semantics. An agent can distinguish it from step_over, step_into, and continue_execution purely from the description without opening a schema.

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 is implied by the step-debugging vocabulary and the returned state semantics, but the description never states the prerequisite (e.g. a paused/stopped session) or when to prefer step_out over step_over/step_into/continue_execution. No explicit when/when-not guidance is offered.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the ~5s wait, the success-with-state="running" and pending:true outcome, the eventual transition to "paused", and the recovery paths (list_debug_sessions or pause_execution). It omits error/precondition behavior (e.g. what happens if the session is not paused or sessionId is invalid), keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first four words, and the subsequent clauses all earn their place by describing the non-obvious async semantics. The long em-dash clause is dense but not padded.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the critical operational nuance (pending/running state, recovery via pause_execution). Missing only precondition and failure-mode detail, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 0% for the single sessionId parameter, and the description never explains it. The indirect reference to list_debug_sessions hints at where a session ID comes from, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap with any format, origin, or validity detail.

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?

"Step over the current line" states a specific debugger verb and its target, and the term "step over" carries conventional meaning distinct from step_into/step_out. However, the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those sibling tools, so the differentiation rests on the reader's prior debugger knowledge rather than on the text.

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 explains what happens during execution but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the obvious alternatives (step_into, step_out, continue_execution). The mention of a long-running call is an example of the async behavior, not a selection criterion for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose idempotent behavior ('succeeds as a no-op if not exposed') and an important destructive side effect (disconnecting IDE clients). It does not cover permissions, error cases, or return behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the idempotency caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the effect and no-op guarantee are covered, but parameter meaning and error/return behavior are absent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the description never mentions sessionId or its expected format/source. It must compensate for the coverage gap and does not, leaving the single parameter entirely defined by the bare schema type.

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?

States a specific verb (close) and resource (the session's DAP mirror endpoint), plus a concrete side effect (disconnecting attached IDE clients). It is implicitly the inverse of the sibling expose_session, so an agent can place it immediately.

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 is only implied: the no-op note tells you it is safe to call regardless of state, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing or reference to expose_session as the counterpart. It does not state prerequisites or when to prefer an alternative.

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