rad_pause

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

The annotations already establish this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it blocks and returns only after the stop event occurs, which is not visible in the annotations. However, it never says what happens if the wait exceeds the default 10s timeout or whether the pause is resumable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably underspecified rather than concise given the unresolved timeout and session semantics.

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 return values need not be described. Still, for a blocking, session-scoped debugger operation with 0% parameter documentation, the agent lacks necessary facts: timeout behavior, required session state, and the distinction from rad_wait_for_stop.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for the two parameters, and it names neither. The word 'wait' hints at the blocking semantics of timeout but gives no default, units, or behavior on expiry, and session_id's role is entirely unstated.

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 (pause) and resource (running processes) plus the follow-on effect (waiting for the resulting stop), which is more informative than the tool name alone. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent rad_wait_for_stop or rad_continue, so an agent must infer the boundary from names.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from rad_wait_for_stop (which also waits for a stop) or when to prefer rad_continue/rad_step, nor what session state is required beforehand.

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