Debugger: Status

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the call is non-blocking, that 'stopped' means HALTED and safe to inspect, and that an attached session may already exist from the app's own debugger UI. This materially changes how an agent sequences its actions and is not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the lead sentence gives the core result and state enum, the second gives a concrete pre-call decision, and the third gives polling guidance plus the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is 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?

For a simple parameter-light, side-effect-free status tool, this description covers the state vocabulary, the safe-to-inspect condition, pre-call and polling use cases, and redirects to debugger_wait_for_stop for blocking behavior. The schema covers the device parameter, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single optional parameter is already well documented in the schema (Roku IP/serial, must match Dev Studio tab, omit for focused tab). The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a precise action ('Return the session state'), a resource (device), and a key qualifier (WITHOUT blocking), then enumerates the possible returned states. It distinguishes itself from debugger_wait_for_stop by naming the blocking alternative, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before debugger_attach to check for an existing session, and as a poll to decide whether inspection tools will work. It also names when not to use it ('to block until the next halt use debugger_wait_for_stop instead'), which is textbook usage guidance.

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