ppsspp_breakpoint_add

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

Discloses key behaviors: modifies breakpoint table, persistence until removal or restart, error on non-executable memory. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention whether duplicate addresses are handled, but overall adequate.

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?

Four short sections with clear labels (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). No redundant sentences; every line provides unique value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, return format, and error case. Missing details like duplicate handling or disabling momentarily, but still complete enough for successful invocation.

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 covers address with description, but description adds context: 'Usually in user RAM (0x08800000+) or kernel RAM.' This extra guidance helps the agent select correct addresses.

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?

Clearly states verb+resource: 'Add a CPU execution breakpoint' with specific location (PSP physical address) and effect (emulation halts when PC reaches). Distinguishes from siblings like ppsspp_breakpoint_list and ppsspp_breakpoint_remove.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use ('For RE work and HLE intercepts') and suggests combining with specific sibling tools (ppsspp_resume, ppsspp_get_registers), providing clear usage context.

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