Control paused JavaScript debugger

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying 'local' and 'paused', but it doesn't explain the resulting debugger state change (e.g., execution continues, stepping advances one statement). There is no contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the tool's core purpose.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety profile, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it omits important invocation context such as the requirement that sessionId refer to an existing paused local session and what happens to that session after each action. It is minimally viable but relies heavily on parameter names and sibling tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It only weakly compensates: 'resume or step' mirrors the action enum, but it never explains that sessionId identifies the paused target session, nor does it clarify the difference between stepOver, stepInto, and stepOut. The agent is left to infer semantic distinctions from enum names alone.

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 and resource: 'Resume or step a paused local JavaScript target.' It clearly communicates what the tool does and its scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the wording distinguishes it from evaluation, breakpoint-setting, and browser action 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 the usage context: the target must already be paused, and the operation resumes or steps it. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as using web_debug_evaluate to inspect state or web_breakpoint_set to set breakpoints first.

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