get_debugger_hits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the hit shape, that paused=true means the game is paused, and the exact resume path via pause({paused:false}). It omits buffer-size or polling-frequency behavior, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Well front-loaded, starting with the action and resource before detailing hit fields, cursor semantics, and the pause interaction. Dense but every sentence carries information; the hit-field enumeration is borderline but justified since there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the returned hit fields and the cursor workflow. Combined with the fully documented params and the pause/resume dependency, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 clear/limit/since_id are already documented. The description reinforces since_id as a cursor but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('recent hits from DevBridge.debugger() calls') and clarifies the mechanism (JS-debugger-style breakpoint). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_traces, get_errors, and get_game_events.

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?

Explains cursor usage ('Use since_id from a previous call to get only new hits') and notes the streaming alternative (SSE 'debugger' events), which routes the agent between polling and real-time. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, keeping it short of a 5.

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