resume_debugger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially delivers: it discloses the ownership constraint and the destructive side effect of expiring stopped references. It says nothing about timeout behavior, what happens if the session is not suspended, whether the resume is reversible, or what a failure looks like.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second clause 'immediately expire stopped references' is dense jargon that would benefit from a word of clarification.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, four parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an enum, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine timeout failure semantics or the meaning of responseMode from the definition alone.

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 must compensate, but it only loosely evokes debugSessionId ('owned') and stopId ('stopped references'). The timeoutMs bound/default and especially the responseMode enum (compact vs debug) are left entirely unexplained anywhere.

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 names a specific verb and resource: resuming a debugger suspension, scoped to sessions the caller owns, with the added effect of expiring stopped references. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as step_debugger, detach_debugger, or wait_for_debugger_event.

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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites (for example, that a stop must currently be suspended), and no mention of when to choose this over step_debugger or detach_debugger. The word 'owned' hints at a precondition but never states it.

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