Clears all breakpoints from the target device, including hardware breakpoints left armed by earlier debug sessions.
Clear all breakpoints, including any left armed in the debug hardware by an earlier session
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious side effect: the tool also clears breakpoints armed in debug hardware from earlier sessions, which signals persistence across sessions. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the tool name alone conveys.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Clear all breakpoints' immediately states the action, and the trailing clause adds important hardware-session context without bloating the text.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what the operation does and even addresses a subtle edge case about hardware-armed breakpoints from prior sessions. It could optionally mention return behavior or idempotency, but for this simple command the core contextual needs are met.
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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter surface for the description to explain. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource, 'Clear all breakpoints,' making the tool's function unmistakable. The added clause about breakpoints 'left armed in the debug hardware by an earlier session' clearly distinguishes this cleanup operation from ordinary breakpoint manipulation and from siblings like set_breakpoint.
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 when to use this tool: when a complete cleanup is desired, especially after a previous session may have left hardware breakpoints armed. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as set_breakpoint, leaving the usage boundary to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.