Pause DOSBox emulation at the current instruction to inspect memory or debug DOS programs before continuing execution.
Pause emulation at the current instruction.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "debug_pause"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with a state-changing debug control but conveys almost nothing on its own. The description does not say whether the pause is immediate or at the next instruction boundary, whether it requires an active debug session, or that debug_continue is needed to resume, so the behavioral burden is largely unmet.
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 short sentence with no filler and the key action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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 parameters, no output schema, and only readOnlyHint=false, the description is the sole carrier of context — and it omits the prerequisites (running emulation, debug session), the effect on execution state, and how to resume. For a debug control in a dense sibling family, that is insufficient.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to document or compensate for. The empty schema fully describes the call signature.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Pause emulation') and adds the scope qualifier 'at the current instruction', which lets an agent distinguish it from debug_step (advance one instruction) and debug_continue (resume). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says the emulator must be running, nothing says this is the counterpart to debug_continue, and no condition for choosing it over debug_step or freeze_set is given. An agent must infer all of this from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.