debug_until

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

Annotations declare safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value: it discloses the return payload (stop event, decoded backtrace, innermost-frame locals) and the temporary/conditional breakpoint behavior, which annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the collapse rationale is a tight second clause. No padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the return values (stop event, backtrace, locals). Reasonably complete for a repro tool; minor gap on error/timeout outcomes but not blocking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description reinforces 'optional conditional/temporary breakpoint' but adds little syntax or default detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 chain (set breakpoint, run, return stop event) on a specific resource (a location) and explicitly names what it collapses. An agent can distinguish it from breakpoint/run/read_call_stack siblings immediately.

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?

Frames usage as a 'one-call repro step' and names the three sibling operations it replaces (set_breakpoint + run + read frame/vars), giving clear context for selection. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like run_to_line or run_and_wait, keeping it below a 5.

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