pause

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

Annotations already mark the operation as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: the pause is not instantaneous, it occurs at the next scene boundary, and the daemon actively checks for a pause signal between scenes. This is consistent with the 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mechanism in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless, idempotent, non-destructive tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete: it states what will happen, when it will happen, and why. The only minor gap is no explicit pointer to the complementary 'resume' tool, but the sibling list already provides that context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and 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 uses a specific verb ('Pause'), a clear resource ('the daemon'), and a precise condition ('at the next scene boundary'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tool 'resume' by naming the complementary action.

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 clearly indicates this is for a graceful, boundary-aligned pause rather than an immediate stop: 'The daemon checks for a pause signal between scenes.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, but the intended timing and use case are clear.

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