Wait for pause

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

The description discloses blocking behavior and the single-waiter constraint, which is useful. However, the readOnlyHint=true annotation contradicts the description's explicit action of starting the isolate and registering a waiter, both of which are state-mutating side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences efficiently present the conditional state machine first, then the critical constraint. There is no filler; every clause contributes operational guidance.

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 core state-machine behavior is described, but for a blocking tool with no output schema it omits important details: timeout failure behavior, the structure of the 'current snapshot', and what happens if a second waiter is attempted. These gaps leave an agent uncertain about return values and error cases.

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 already provides 100% parameter documentation for sessionId and timeoutMs, including defaults and conditions. The description adds no additional parameter-level 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 defines a state-dependent wait operation with explicit branches for awaiting_start, paused, and running, specifying the action for each. It clearly identifies the tool's role relative to debugger control, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

It explains when to call based on the current debugger state and adds practical guidance such as setting breakpoints before starting the isolate and noting the single-waiter-per-session constraint. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the state-based conditions give clear context.

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