Add a software breakpoint at a given address (hex or int) to pause execution during headless dynamic analysis of Windows executables via IDA Pro's PIN tracer.
Add a software breakpoint at ea (hex or int).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ea | Yes | Address, e.g. 0x140001000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'add' implies mutation but does not disclose permissions, persistence, target-state requirements, side effects, or return 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and parameter are stated immediately, and every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter operation the core purpose is covered, but with no annotations or output schema the description should do more to explain target state, side effects, or how it relates to sibling breakpoint tools. It is adequate but incomplete.
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%, so the schema already documents the sole parameter. The description adds minor value by noting 'hex or int', but the schema example already shows a hex address and no further format details are given.
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: 'Add a software breakpoint at ea'. It clearly distinguishes the operation from deletion tools like pin_del_bpt, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as whether the debugger must be paused. Usage is only implied by the tool name and operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.