run_and_wait

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

Annotations declare this is a mutating control op (readOnlyHint=false) with no open-world or destructive side effects, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape (stop event fields) and the timeout outcome, and 'resumes the target' confirms the control action. It does not mention required session state or error modes.

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 sentences, zero filler. The return contract is front-loaded and the usage directive follows, so the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a fully documented two-param schema, and no output schema, the description appropriately explains the returned stop event and timeout. It is nearly complete, lacking only prerequisites (e.g., an active paused session) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 100% with two optional parameters, so the schema already documents 'session' and 'timeout_sec' (default 10). The description references the timeout outcome but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Resumes the target and waits') plus the return contract (structured stop event with reason, symbolized frame, breakpoint id, signal, or timeout). It also names the sibling it replaces ('continue_execution + polling'), so an agent can distinguish it from continue_execution, wait_for_stop, and run_to_line.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this instead of continue_execution + polling to close the debug loop' names the alternative and the intent. It does not address when to prefer the other siblings (wait_for_stop, run_for_duration, debug_until) or when a plain resume is sufficient, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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