debug_halt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the central behavioral effect (the CPU stops) and the result shape, which is more than nothing. However, it is silent on whether the call blocks until the core actually halts, what happens if the target is already halted, and whether the halted state persists until debug_resume.

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?

One summary sentence up front, followed by short Args/Returns blocks with no filler. The docstring scaffolding is slightly heavier than needed given that an output schema already exists, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so restating return values is not required, and the parameter source is covered. What remains missing for a state-mutating debugger tool with zero annotation coverage is blocking behavior, error conditions, and interaction with breakpoints or prior halts.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is only titled 'Session Id' in the schema. The description compensates by naming its provenance, 'Session ID from debug_session_start', which is exactly the information an agent needs to supply a valid value. It stops short of stating what happens with an invalid or expired session.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Halt the CPU and report where it stopped.' An agent can distinguish this from debug_resume, debug_step, and debug_registers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from debug_wait_halt, which is the closest sibling and the most likely confusion point.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus debug_wait_halt, debug_step, or debug_status. The only guidance is implicit: the Args note that session_id comes from debug_session_start, which tells the agent this must follow session creation. Useful but not a real when/when-not policy.

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