execution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect of each action (e.g., 'acknowledge' allows other tools to run while paused). However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or error states, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 followed by a concise list of actions with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded. Appropriate size for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool controls debugging flow, the description covers the core actions but lacks broader context. It does not explain prerequisite states (e.g., must be paused at a breakpoint) or typical usage flow, which would help an agent use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the action enum labels with brief explanations ('pause execution') but does not provide additional meaning or examples that the schema lacks.

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 controls execution flow when paused at breakpoints, listing specific actions (pause, resume, stepOver, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like breakpoint (which handles breakpoints themselves) and connectDebugger (which sets up the connection).

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 when paused at breakpoints but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like breakpoint or step. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the action list.

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