aua_pause

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds genuinely useful scope information that annotations cannot convey — that the pause spans CLI/MCP processes and blocks reads as well as actions — but it omits how the pause is lifted, whether it expires, and whether it survives process restarts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrasing 'Android Use reads/actions' is slightly compressed and would read more clearly as plain language, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the agent must supply, but for a global state-changing toggle it should say how the paused state is released and what the agent should expect on subsequent calls — the most consequential behavior is left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies.

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 (pause) and object (Android Use reads/actions), plus the motivating scenario (user authentication takeover). It is distinguishable from the sibling set of action tools because it halts rather than performs device actions, though it never names aua_resume as its inverse.

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 phrase 'for user authentication takeover' implies the triggering condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule, no mention of pairing it with aua_resume, and no statement about whether other agents/sessions are affected.

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