breakpoint_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions blocking and return context but omits critical details: what happens on timeout (default null vs 'defaults to 30' conflict), whether the stop event is consumed, and if the call can be interrupted.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main action. However, the default value inconsistency between description and schema is a structural flaw that hurts clarity.

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?

The description explains the return value (stop info + auto-context), partially compensating for missing output schema. However, it does not address timeout behavior, the blocking nature, or event consumption, leaving gaps for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 adds meaning to the timeoutSeconds parameter ('Maximum seconds to wait. Defaults to 30.'), but this contradicts the schema's default of null. While schema coverage is 100%, this inconsistency reduces reliability.

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 blocks until a breakpoint or stop event occurs, and returns stop info with context. This distinguishes it from breakpoint management tools (set, list, remove) and debug control tools (continue, step), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_state or debug_step. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., must have set a breakpoint) or when not to use it.

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