poll_debug_events

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only lists event categories. It does not disclose whether polling is blocking or non-blocking, whether events are consumed/cleared, whether a debug session must be active, or how errors/timeouts are handled.

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 that wastes no words: it names the action and the exact event types. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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 zero-parameter tool the description is minimally viable, and the listed event types give useful output expectations. However, avoid the lack of annotations and an output schema, it does not explain return format, polling semantics, or call prerequisites, so an agent may still misjudge when to call it and what to expect.

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 the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The absence of parameters is already visible in the schema, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter text.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and a concrete resource ('target start/quit, breakpoint and step events'), which clearly tells an agent what the tool does. This event-polling role is unique among the sibling tools, so it can be distinguished from debugging actions like continue_or_step or set_breakpoints without opening any schema.

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 polling verb implies that this tool is used to repeatedly retrieve debug events after a session is attached, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance nor alternatives. It does not state prerequisites such as requiring an active debugger connection or that it complements action tools like continue_or_step.

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