dbg_set_breakpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional features but omits important traits such as what happens when both file:line and function are specified, how errors are reported, or what the return value looks like. The description is too brief to fully inform an agent about side effects or constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core action (Set a breakpoint) and then lists options. Every word is necessary and no content is redundant. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the main location and optional features but does not specify return behavior, error handling, or the exact relationship between parameters. This is adequate for simple use but may lead to confusion in complex scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that file and line (or function) specify the location, and that condition, hit_condition, and log_message are optional. However, it does not describe the session_id parameter, nor does it clarify the mutual exclusivity of location parameters. Despite this, the description adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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's action (set breakpoint) and the two main location types (file:line or function). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dbg_remove_breakpoint and dbg_list_breakpoints, and provides a concise, specific verb-resource pair.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or context hints. The description simply states what it does without helping the agent decide between this and similar tools like dbg_set_watchpoint or dbg_remove_breakpoint.

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