debug_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that function names resolve via the session's ELF and that the breakpoint list is returned after the operation. It omits meaningful behavior for a mutation tool — the finite number of hardware breakpoint slots, error behavior when clearing a nonexistent location, and whether the core must be halted.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then Args/Returns blocks with no filler. Slightly redundant in restating parameter names that the schema already lists, but efficient overall.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description covers all three parameters and the four actions. For a debug-breakpoint mutation tool with no annotations, key operational facts (hardware breakpoint limits, halt requirements, failure behavior) are absent.

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 must do the work — and it does: action enumerates all four values and the 'list' default, location is defined as function name or hex address with an explicit ELF resolution rule, and session_id's origin is stated. Only edge details (default empty location) are missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Manage hardware breakpoints') and pegs it to the FPB unit, which separates it conceptually from debug_watchpoint. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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 action list ('set', 'clear', 'clear_all', 'list' default) and the note that location is required for set/clear give clear per-mode usage. However, it never says when to prefer this over debug_watchpoint or what preconditions (e.g., halted core) apply.

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