run_to_line

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

The annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that the operation runs until a target location is reached, which indicates blocking execution-control behavior. However, it omits important behavioral details such as timeout behavior, what happens if the location is never reached, and whether an active debug session is required.

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. It immediately states the core behavior and examples of valid location syntax.

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 debug execution-control tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the definition is minimally viable. It still lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools and behavioral details such as timeout or failure behavior, but the safety-relevant traits are covered by annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful syntax examples for the required location parameter: a function, 'file.c:42', or '*0xADDR'. The optional session parameter is documented only in the schema, but the location guidance provides useful extra semantics.

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 states a specific execution-control action: run until a given location is reached. It also clarifies acceptable location formats such as a function name, file.c:42, or *0xADDR. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like debug_until, run_and_wait, or continue_execution.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as step, continue_execution, run_and_wait, or debug_until. The intended context is implied by the tool name and description, but no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated.

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