Wait for the next pause

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior (blocking for up to wait_ms until a breakpoint/exception), which is useful, but it omits whether the call mutates any state, what happens if the process is not running, and any concurrency caveats.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the core behavior (block up to wait_ms) and appends the triggering example. No filler or redundancy.

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-parameter, no-annotation tool whose return semantics ('running' vs pause) live in the schema, this is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain around edge cases (process not running, repeated calls), but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 there is a single parameter fully documented with default, min, and max. The description only references wait_ms by name and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (block/wait) and resource (process pause/breakpoint or exception), and the name matches. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pause' (which actively pauses) by describing passive waiting, but never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario ('after you trigger an HTTP request against it from elsewhere'), which gives implied guidance. However, it offers no exclusions and does not contrast with alternatives like polling 'status' or the active 'pause' tool, leaving the choice to inference.

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