set_breakpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It warns about unexpected behavior on certain lines, which adds transparency. However, it does not detail other behaviors like what happens when a breakpoint is hit or whether it can be removed.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no extraneous words and is highly concise.

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 the complexity of a debugger tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (there is no output schema), how to use the 'condition' parameter, or the effect of 'suspendPolicy'. The schema covers some parameter descriptions, but the description itself lacks completeness.

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 60%, which is below the 80% threshold. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the 5 parameters (e.g., it doesn't explain 'sessionId', 'condition', or 'suspendPolicy' in the description text). The schema itself provides some descriptions for 'file' and 'line', but the description fails to compensate for the 40% undocumented parameters.

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 action ('Set a breakpoint') and the resource (a breakpoint). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'step_into' or 'continue_execution', as setting a breakpoint is a different operation.

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 includes a warning about setting breakpoints on non-executable lines, which provides usage guidance. However, it does not offer broader context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set a breakpoint vs. stepping through code).

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