Debug This Hang

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it can pause a running live target, launches or attaches via several adapters, observes for a bounded interval, and explicitly warns that generic DAP cannot prove lock ownership. This is valuable operational disclosure that annotations do not 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states purpose and trigger conditions, the second explains mode behavior, the third states a safety exclusion, and the fourth adds an important epistemic caveat about lock-cycle interpretation. Content 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?

For a tool this complex—20 parameters, nested objects, five modes, output schema present, and rich annotations—the description covers the essential workflow, mode distinctions, and safety boundaries. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with debug_this_crash, but an agent has enough to call it correctly given the exhaustive input schema and output schema.

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%, with each parameter already documented in detail. The description adds workflow-level context but no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate: the structured field descriptions do the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: a 'high-level native hang workflow for all-thread triage.' It immediately names the triggering conditions (stuck, deadlocked, waiting forever, spinning) and the deliverable (bounded stacks from every thread, wait-state/deadlock heuristics, Pointer-Provenance v2), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling crash-focused tools like debug_this_crash.

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 criteria ('Use it when a live process appears stuck...') and a clear exclusion: do not use executable/attach modes when target execution or debugger control is not authorized. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for crash triage, so it falls just short of full alternative routing, but the context is otherwise strong.

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