set_count_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets a count breakpoint that stops after N hits and explains the three impl options (auto, soft intrusive, hard real-time). It does not mention side effects but given the tool's nature, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and a simple tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return type. Minor gap: could mention that it requires breakpoint support, but not critical.

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 0%, so the description adds full meaning. It explains 'address' as address or symbol name, 'count' with an example, and 'impl' with three options, which the schema lacks.

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 sets a count breakpoint that stops after the N-th hit, distinguishing it from other breakpoint tools like set_breakpoint or set_conditional_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 explicitly says it is useful for breaking in a loop at a specific iteration, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings.

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