Manage Debug Sessions

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate mutation/destruction. It adds useful behavioral context about session isolation and default-session backward compatibility. It does not spell out that closing can terminate the debuggee, but the schema's terminateDebuggee parameter covers that detail.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the actions and context; the second adds the critical sessionId routing caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only behaviors not described in prose are already captured in the structured fields.

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 meaningful descriptions for action, sessionId, and terminateDebuggee. The tool description adds routing context but no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb set ('list, create, or close'), a specific resource ('isolated DAP sessions'), and positions the tool as the session-lifecycle manager that must be used before routing other debugger tools. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling debugger tools like debug_continue or debug_source_disassembly.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (managing DAP sessions before other tools), and gives concrete exclusion guidance: omit sessionId only for the backward-compatible default session and avoid a global session selector for concurrent work. The description tells the agent how to route between this and the other debug tools.

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