ruyi_set_breakpoint_on_text

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for disclosure. It proactively explains the mechanism (injecting debugger; statements), the limitation ('当前 BiDi 不支持完整的 CDP 式断点调试'), and that condition is not yet supported. This is transparent about key behavioral traits, though it does not detail side effects or persistence.

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 compact: two clauses stating the action and mechanism, plus a clearly flagged warning about BiDi limitations. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool without 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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably detailed but leaves gaps: it does not mention what the tool returns on success/failure or how the breakpoint can be removed (although sibling tools like ruyi_remove_breakpoint exist). It is adequate for a simple setter but not fully complete.

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 75%, with text, condition, and urlFilter already described. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond confirming the text parameter's role ('代码文本、URL 片段或函数名'), which matches the schema. This is a typical case where the schema does most of the work.

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 action: '设置软断点' (set soft breakpoint) and the mechanism ('通过 preload script 注入 debugger 或 Proxy 包装'). It also specifies the scope of matching ('支持 XHR/Fetch URL 断点和函数名匹配'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool ruyi_break_on_xhr which is XHR-specific.

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 implies usage by stating what it supports (XHR/Fetch URLs and function names) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ruyi_break_on_xhr or provide when/when-not guidance. The BiDi limitation is a caveat, not a usage directive.

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