Capture debugger hit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: it blocks waiting for a pause, captures the call stack, and optionally limits scope variables to the top frame with bounding. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, whether it resumes execution, or what happens if no pause occurs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Wait for a pause and capture...') and includes essential qualifiers ('optional bounded top-frame') without any fluff. Every word adds meaning.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose but omits details on return format, error handling, and prerequisite session state. It is adequate for understanding the main function but not fully complete for robust usage.

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. It partially maps to parameters: 'optional bounded top-frame scope variables' hints at includeScopes and scopeDepth, and 'wait' implies timeoutMs, but it does not explain sessionId or targetSessionId, and does not provide concrete parameter-level descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('wait' and 'capture') and resource ('call stack plus optional bounded top-frame scope variables'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like debugger_wait_for_paused (only waits) or get_call_stack (only captures stack).

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?

The description implies usage when a pause is expected and both stack and scope variables are needed, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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