run_to_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior (sets temporary breakpoint, resumes, stops on hit) but omits details like behavior on unreachable lines, multiple hits, or interference with existing breakpoints. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with a brief overview followed by structured args. No unnecessary words. However, the 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant as it repeats info that could be in the schema, but it's acceptable given schema lacks descriptions.

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 simple and the description covers the main behavior. An output schema exists, so return value details are sufficient. Could mention differentiation from similar siblings like go_till, but overall 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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear parameter explanations for file and line, including examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 verb 'run until' and the resource 'specific source file line'. It explains the mechanism of setting a temporary breakpoint and resuming execution, which distinguishes it from siblings like set_breakpoint or go alone.

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 it (to continue execution to a specific line) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_temporary_breakpoint followed by go, or step. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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