Resume and wait

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable state-specific behavior: from awaiting_start it starts the isolate, and it waits for the next pause. It does not cover return behavior or side effects, but with annotations present, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. The state-specific note is useful and compact, with no 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not hint at return behavior or disambiguate from closely related siblings like debug_continue and debug_wait_for_pause. The operation is explained, but the sibling ambiguity leaves an agent unsure about correct tool selection.

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 100%, so both sessionId and timeoutMs are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool starts or resumes execution and waits for the next pause, which is a clear action. It does not explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like debug_continue or debug_wait_for_pause, so it lacks sibling differentiation, but the core purpose is specific.

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?

It provides a clear context: 'Use for scripted stepping through breakpoints.' This is explicit usage guidance. However, it gives no alternatives or exclusions, leaving the decision between debug_resume, debug_continue, and debug_wait_for_pause somewhat ambiguous.

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