breakpoint_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive, that process_read_output still drains the full buffer, and details what the snapshot contains (stack frame, source snippet, locals, output peek). This fully discloses behavior beyond what any schema would show.

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?

Three concise sentences with no waste. First sentence defines core action, second details return snapshot, third explains design rationale. Each sentence 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?

Given three optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains return values and usage context. It covers all needed behavior for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in a debugging loop.

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 descriptions are already thorough. The tool description repeats default values and 'pass 0 to omit' already present in schema, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: block until the debuggee stops, then return stop info plus a snapshot. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by noting it bundles inspect and read-output info, distinguishing it from debug_continue, debug_step, process_read_output, etc.

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?

The description provides clear context for use: designed for a step-inspect loop to avoid separate round trips. It implies when to use, though does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond mentioning process_read_output.

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