Set pause on exceptions

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

The description clearly conveys the behavioral effect of the tool: it configures the debugger to pause on no exceptions, uncaught exceptions, or all exceptions. Since no annotations are provided, the description sufficiently fills the transparency gap, though it does not mention side effects or state implications.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the core functionality without needing to detail return values or error conditions. However, it could mention if the change takes immediate effect.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'state' with a description. The tool description adds marginal value by paraphrasing the enum values ('no exceptions, uncaught exceptions, or all exceptions'), but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is met.

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: configuring the debugger's behavior for pausing on exceptions. It uses a specific verb ('configure') and resource (pause-on-exception behavior), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'continue' or 'set_breakpoint'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where changing exception pause settings is appropriate, nor does it explain when other debugger tools might be preferred.

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