Debugger: Pause

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false大手, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance by stating the action is 'best-effort' and asynchronous, implying the halt is not guaranteed and that the actual snapshot comes from a subsequent call. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the essential follow-up and precondition. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple, one-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral contract: request the halt, use wait_for_stop for the snapshot, and only invoke while running. It could theoretically state what the immediate response is, but that is minor given the clear workflow and the annotations already covering non-destructiveness and side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single optional 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the fallback to the focused tab. The description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics or constraints beyond the schema, which warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Request a halt') with a clear resource ('a running channel') and adds the qualifier 'best-effort,' which precisely defines the action. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like debugger_continue, debugger_step, and debugger_wait_for_stop, which represent different debugger control operations.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Only meaningful while running.' It also provides a follow-up workflow, instructing the agent to use debugger_wait_for_stop to get the snapshot once stopping occurs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the 'only meaningful' condition, but the guidance is sufficient for correct sequencing.

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