debug.exception_breakpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It minimally states 'Break on exceptions' but does not explain what happens upon break (e.g., debugger pauses), prerequisites (e.g., attached debug session), or lifecycle. This is adequate but insufficient for full transparency.

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 that conveys the core function without any extraneous words. Every part 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?

For a debug tool with side effects and dependencies, this description is too brief. It does not mention required setup (e.g., debug session via debug.attach), expected return values, or interaction with other tools like debug.list_breakpoints. An agent would likely need additional context to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with only 33% description coverage (class_pattern described). The description adds 'optionally by class' but does not clarify the boolean semantics of 'caught' and 'uncaught' (e.g., default true means break on all caught/uncaught exceptions). Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the 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 purpose: 'Break on exceptions (caught/uncaught, optionally by class)'. This specifies the verb 'break', the resource 'exceptions', and the filtering options, distinguishing it from other breakpoint tools like line 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?

While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, the purpose and sibling tools (e.g., debug.set_breakpoint for line breakpoints) make the context clear. The description implies usage for setting exception breakpoints, but lacks direct guidance on when not to use.

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