pyocd_target_wait_halt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels by disclosing multiple behaviors: progress notifications to prevent timeouts, automatic backtrace inclusion, CPU LOCKUP detection, and return details (halt reason, PC, registers).

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 three sentences, concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then details workflow, returns, and special features. No unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists (per context), the description adequately covers return values and special behaviors. It provides enough information for an AI agent to understand the tool's complete functionality and usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions progress notifications (related to 'user_hint') but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Resume target execution and wait for it to halt') and the specific debugging workflow it supports ('set breakpoint → run → wait for hit → inspect'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pyocd_target_halt and pyocd_target_resume by focusing on waiting for a halt event.

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?

It explicitly describes the tool as the 'KEY tool' for a common debugging workflow, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, though the context strongly implies its role.

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