debugger_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a timeout leaves the target running rather than stopping it — but says nothing about blocking behavior, whether the call returns immediately on an already-stopped target, or what session state is required.

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 compact sentence with the most consequential fact (timeout leaves the target running) placed after the purpose clause. No filler, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a blocking debugger primitive the description omits how long it blocks by default and how session_id and execution identifiers relate, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 description implies the timeout is a wait bound with a side effect on the target, which adds a little meaning beyond the schema. However, it does nothing to clarify the relationship between the top-level 'session_id' and the 'session_id' nested inside 'execution', leaving a real ambiguity the agent must guess at.

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 verb 'wait' and the outcome 'stop or terminal observation' give a rough sense of the operation, but the phrase 'terminal observation' is undefined and the tool is not distinguished from close siblings such as debugger_pause, debugger_continue, or debugger_get, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 statement of when to call this instead of debugger_pause or debugger_continue, nor any prerequisite such as needing an already-running execution. Usage is only inferable from the word 'wait'.

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