ruyi_break_on_xhr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect of injecting debugger, but does not mention whether breakpoints are persistent, how they interact with existing breakpoints, or any prerequisites. The equivalence to another tool adds some clarity but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful equivalence note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves gaps: pageIdx is unexplained, and the description does not mention whether breakpoints are persistent or how they are managed. It is adequate for basic understanding but an agent may need to consult sibling tools or additional context to fully use it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: url is described as a substring match, but pageIdx has no description. The description only reinforces the URL matching behavior and does not compensate for the undocumented pageIdx parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 triggers a breakpoint (injects debugger) when XHR/Fetch request URLs match, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ruyi_set_breakpoint_on_text by describing itself as an XHR wrapper, making its purpose 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?

The description names an alternative tool (ruyi_set_breakpoint_on_text) and explains this is the XHR-specific variant, giving clear context on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the equivalence provides sufficient guidance for selection.

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