Get paused debugger state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is locally cached (potentially stale) and that the call is non-blocking. While it doesn't address edge cases like when no paused state exists, the key non-blocking and cached behaviors are clearly communicated.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence (13 words) with the verb front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent understands the tool's purpose but lacks guidance on parameter usage, error scenarios, or the structure of returned frames, making confident invocation difficult.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description mentions no parameters. It fails to explain the meaning of sessionId or targetSessionId or how they affect the returned data, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'locally cached pause reason and frames'. The qualifier 'without waiting for new events' distinguishes this from blocking pause-wait tools like debugger_wait_for_paused, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without waiting for new events' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need immediate, cached state without blocking. Though it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the contrast with waiting is evident and effectively implies the usage context.

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