debug_pause

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

Description mentions return value ('Returns: where it stopped'), adding behavioral context beyond annotations. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, it correctly implies state mutation. However, does not fully elaborate on effects like game pause state or thread-specific behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the action and providing usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, return value, and use case. Minor gap: could mention thread specificity, but schema covers thread_id. Overall, sufficient.

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% (thread_id documented in schema). The tool description does not repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema suffices.

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?

Explicitly states 'Pause the running game' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like debug_set_breakpoints by noting it's for arbitrary moments rather than preset breakpoints.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use to inspect state at an arbitrary moment rather than a preset breakpoint.' This distinguishes from breakpoint usage. Could be improved by explicitly noting when not to use (e.g., for stepping use debug_step_over), but current guidance is helpful.

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