debugger_remove_all_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key side effects: removing all DevCDP-set breakpoints and resuming the page if paused. It adds useful cleanup semantics beyond the bare tool name, though it does not mention idempotence or what happens when no breakpoints are present.

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, both load-bearing: the first states exactly what the tool does, the second explains when to use it. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains both the action and the practical cleanup scenario, leaving no ambiguity about invocation intent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Remove every breakpoint DevCDP set' plus the conditional resume action. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like debugger_remove_breakpoint, which removes a single breakpoint, and debugger_resume, which only resumes.

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 explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this before handing the browser back to a human.' It gives a clear motivating context, though it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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