gdb_set_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions return details and covers core behavior but does not discuss error conditions, side effects, or permission needs. It adds some context beyond annotations but is not exhaustive.

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 no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action, and structured logically. Each sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose, return values, and usage guidance. It is reasonably complete for typical use, though lacks error handling details.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains location types ('function, file:line, or address') and highlights the hardware parameter. This provides operational context not present in schema descriptions alone.

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 'set' and the resource 'breakpoint', specifying three location types: function, file:line, or address. It also mentions conditional, temporary, and hardware-assisted breakpoints, distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete, disable, enable, or list breakpoints.

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 advises using gdb_list_breakpoints to verify and requires session_id from gdb_start_session, providing clear context on prerequisites and verification. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough.

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