suspend_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the requested action, the required target state ('running'), and the timing of the stop ('on the next BSL instruction'), which provides useful non-obvious behavior. It does not mention return values or failure behavior, but the core effect is transparent.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler. The verb and key constraint are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter control tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits context about expected target state transitions, error conditions, and how the result is conveyed, which an agent might need to interpret the tool's effect reliably.

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 schema provides no description and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties the action to 'a running target,' making targetId's role inferable, but it never explicitly says that targetId identifies the target to suspend. The single self-descriptive parameter makes this adequate but not exemplary.

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 ('suspend'/'request... to stop') with a clear resource ('running target') and a precise condition ('on the next BSL instruction'). This distinguishes it from sibling execution-control tools like continue_or_step and detach_targets.

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 tool is for pausing a running target during debugging, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over siblings or mention alternatives. There is no direct guidance on prerequisites such as an attached debugger.

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