hang_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-pauses if running, lists threads, fetches top frames, classifies blocking patterns, and leaves the session paused for further inspection. It does not mention potential side effects like performance impact or state modification, but given the diagnostic nature, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 long, front-loading the purpose and listing actions clearly. It is efficient but could benefit from bullet points or more structured formatting for easier parsing. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete overview: what the tool does, its actions, and the resulting state (paused). It does not specify return format or output details, but for a diagnostic tool this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.

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% (1 parameter with description). The description mentions 'fetches the top frames of each', reinforcing the parameter's purpose. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description ('Top frames per thread to fetch. Default 10.'). 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 the tool's purpose ('Diagnose why an application appears stuck') and lists specific actions (auto-pauses, lists threads, fetches top frames, classifies blocking patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug_pause (generic pause) and threads_list (list only without diagnosis).

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 implies when to use it ('when an application appears stuck'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention using breakpoint_set or stacktrace_get for other debugging scenarios. The context is clear but without exclusions.

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