Debugger: Wait for Stop

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: server-side blocking/polling, timeout handling with distinct return variants, and the exact state returned when the session ends. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core blocking behavior and return value, alternative timeout/session returns, when to call it, and timeout parameter details. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully supplies the return contract for all three outcomes: stopped, timed out, or session ended. It also covers invocation timing and the optional timeout parameter, making the tool complete and callable without further research.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents device and timeoutMs. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating the timeout default and cap, so the 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 states a specific action and resource: it blocks until the target halts at a breakpoint/STOP/step-completion/runtime error, then returns a structured stop snapshot. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling debugger tools like debugger_continue or debugger_status, which do different things.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: right after debugger_continue, debugger_step, or after triggering the app. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the invocation context is clear and concrete.

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