Debugger: Pause

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), the description discloses 'best-effort' semantics and the precondition that it is only meaningful while running, providing additional behavioral insight.

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, uses two short sentences, and includes all essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 covers the essential context: what it does, its best-effort nature, the precondition, and the follow-up step. It does not mention return values or errors, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is adequate.

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 sole parameter (device) is fully described in the input schema with its optionality and usage. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific details, but given 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 action ('Request a halt') and the target ('a running channel'), and specifies it is best-effort. It distinguishes from siblings like debugger_continue or debugger_step by focusing on pausing.

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 provides explicit guidance on when it is meaningful (only while `running`) and directs the user to follow with debugger_wait_for_stop. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative debugger actions, but the context is clear enough for use.

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