get_paused_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like whether this requires debugger access, if it works only in specific debug modes, or potential performance implications. It provides basic context but lacks operational details.

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, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and what's returned. Second sentence provides clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which covers return values), the description focuses appropriately on purpose and usage context. It provides enough information for an agent to understand when and why to use this tool, though parameter guidance is missing. For a debug inspection tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description mentions no parameters at all, while there are 3 parameters in the schema. The description doesn't explain what 'include_scopes', 'max_scope_depth', or 'frame_index' mean or how they affect the returned information.

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 verb ('Gets information') and the specific resource ('current paused state'), listing the exact data returned (call stack, current location, scope variables). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on debug state inspection rather than breakpoint management or execution control.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this after a breakpoint is hit to understand the execution context.' This provides clear situational guidance and distinguishes it from other debugging tools that might be used at different times or for different purposes.

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