debug_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key return behavior ('Returns session_id'), implies the side effect of launching/building a program, and explains the Rust-specific build-and-debug flow. It does not cover error cases or permission implications, but the core execution behavior is clear and not misleading.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action and return value are front-loaded, and the Rust-specific guidance earns its place by resolving a real ambiguity. The structure is compact and scannable.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, return value, and the most complex parameter interaction. The remaining details (env, args, stop_on_entry) are fully documented in the schema, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the provided information.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema by explaining how to combine adapter='rust' with either program or cargo_args, and by giving a concrete cargo_args example. This helps an agent choose between two mutually relevant 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 ('Launch') and resource ('a program for debugging'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like debug_attach and debug_disconnect by framing it as the entry point that produces a session_id. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 context for when to use the tool: to start a debugging session and obtain a session_id for subsequent operations. It also provides concrete guidance for Rust usage with adapter='rust' and the program/cargo_args choice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like debug_attach, but the launch-vs-attach distinction is implicit and strong enough.

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