debugger_get_state

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the returned information (reason, full call stack, file positions) and the special paused:false behavior when running. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model of the tool despite lacking annotations.

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 sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes the important running-state edge case without extra fluff. Every clause adds value, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 explains the main return fields: pause reason, call stack with function names and positions, and paused:false when running. It could go slightly further in describing the exact shape of the call stack entries, but it is largely complete for a parameterless getter.

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, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description adds useful context about what the returned state represents, aligning with the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 what the tool does: it reports where execution is paused, including the reason and the full call stack with function names and 1-based file positions. It also explicitly covers the running-state case with paused:false, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling debugger 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when execution is paused and you need the current location and call stack. It even signals that it can be used to check whether the page is running. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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