Resume debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention what happens if the debugger is not paused, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on execution state. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 direct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning full marks for structural efficiency.

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 debugger control tool with no annotations and two unannotated parameters, this description is too minimal. It lacks information about when to use the tool, what the parameters mean, and what outcome to expect, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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% for both parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'sessionId' or the ambiguous 'targetSessionId', leaving the agent to guess. Parameter names alone are insufficient, especially for 'targetSessionId'.

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 clear verb ('Resume') and specific resource ('paused JavaScript debugger'), making the core action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like debugger_step or debugger_run_to_location, which also advance debugger state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'Use when paused, not for stepping'). The description implies use on a paused debugger but does not state prerequisites or alternative scenarios.

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