set_breakpoint_on_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and adds no details about side effects, permissions, limits, or error cases. The tool modifies debugging state, but this is not explicitly noted.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, but it is too terse. It lacks any structured breakdown of behavior or parameters, making it less useful than it could be without becoming verbose.

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 with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context about return values, usage patterns, or parameter interactions. It is incomplete for guiding an AI agent effectively.

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 only 17% (only 'filter' has a description). The tool's description does not explain the meaning or usage of key parameters like regex, condition, occurrence, or case_sensitive. It fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.

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 tool searches scripts and sets breakpoints by text/regex, distinguishing it from sibling tools that set breakpoints by URL or script ID. However, it could explicitly name the alternatives for stronger differentiation.

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 phrase 'Best for AI-driven debugging' is vague and provides no specific guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_breakpoint_by_url or set_breakpoint_by_script_id. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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