pause_game

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

With annotations providing only false hints (readOnly, destructive, etc.), the description must disclose behaviors itself. It does reveal a non-obvious trait: the MCP receiver remains active during pause. But it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the game state. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a key behavioral detail and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, a key behavioral nuance, and a requirement. It could mention what happens after unpausing, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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 covers the single parameter 'paused' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 or unpause') with a clear resource ('a running project'), making the primary action unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_project by implying a non-terminal halt. The added detail about the MCP receiver staying active further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 provides contextual guidance by stating 'MCP receiver stays active for screenshots, state queries, and property changes while paused,' which suggests use cases where the project should remain responsive. It also notes 'Requires run_interactive,' setting a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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