rad_run_to_line

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that execution resumes from the current stop and halts at a line, stop, or exit, but it omits details such as timeout behavior, side effects in the debuggee, and the active-session precondition.

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 wording. It is appropriately concise for the action being described.

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 four undocumented parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a debugger action that can resume target execution, one sentence is not complete enough. The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but key calling details remain missing.

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 carry parameter meaning. "Source line" loosely implies file and line, but session_id and timeout are entirely unexplained, and no format, units, or defaults are provided.

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 debugger action: run from the current stop to a source line, another stop, or exit. The verb and target are clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as rad_continue or rad_step.

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?

Usage is implied by "from the current stop," suggesting the tool applies when execution is paused. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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