Dbg Add Bp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether a debug session must already be running, what happens on an invalid or repeated address, or whether the operation is idempotent. 'Add' implies mutation of debugger state, but no side effects or failure modes are disclosed.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 debugger-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: the requirement for an active debug session, and the fact that a breakpoint identifier likely needs to be returned for later use by dbg_delete_bp/dbg_enable_bp. Too little for the tool's complexity.

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 addr (single or comma-separated), timeout, and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description's plural 'address(es)' is consistent with the comma-separated format but adds no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (add breakpoint) with the target argument (addresses), which cleanly separates it from siblings dbg_delete_bp, dbg_enable_bp, and dbg_list_bps. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus dbg_enable_bp/dbg_run_to, and no stated prerequisite such as an active debug session via dbg_start. The agent must infer the entire context of use from the name alone.

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