Resume execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that this call blocks for up to wait_ms, enumerates what counts as a new pause (breakpoint, exception, debugger statement), and gives the fallback return value "running". It does not cover error cases such as being called when the process is not paused, or whether "running" means still executing versus terminated.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The action is stated first and the return contract (next pause vs "running") follows immediately; every clause earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what it does, that it blocks, and what it returns. The main gap is state/prerequisite handling (behavior when the target is not paused), which is the one thing an agent could get wrong.

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 coverage is 100% and the wait_ms schema description already explains the timeout semantics, so the description repeats rather than extends that meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only the framing of the wait as a blocking behavior.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Resume") with a specific resource ("the paused process"), so an agent knows this continues full-speed execution. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the step_over/step_into/step_out siblings, which also advance a paused process, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

"Resume the paused process" implies the prerequisite state (process must be paused) but never states it as a condition, and gives no guidance on choosing this over step_over/step_into/step_out or wait_for_pause. Usage is therefore inferable but not spelled out.

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