debugger_control

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists actions without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be active), or state changes. The agent lacks information about what happens when paused vs running.

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?

Extremely concise, single sentence that immediately states purpose and lists actions. No wasted words.

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 simple tool, the description covers the basic purpose and acceptable actions. However, it lacks contextual completeness regarding prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be connected) and state-dependent behavior.

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 schema already defines the parameter with an enum, so the description adds no new meaning. It merely re-lists the values. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could have provided context for each action (e.g., what step_over does vs step_into), but it doesn't.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('control') and resource ('debugger execution'), listing the exact actions. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like set_breakpoint or status.

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 in debugging scenarios but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_breakpoint or evaluate_on_callframe. It lists actions but lacks context for selection.

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