set_breakpoint

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

Describes breakpoint as expression condition that fires when non-zero. Explains that setting with enabled=false issues disable-breakpoint. Mentions action and pass_count. No annotations provided, so description bears full burden, but jargon like 'ZRCP' may be obscure.

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?

Compact paragraph that front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Covers all key aspects efficiently.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description provides comprehensive context: two usage modes, parameter interactions, and behavior details (e.g., action, pass_count). Agent can correctly invoke tool.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains precedence of condition over type/address, number formatting defaults, meaning of enum values for type and action, and effect of enabled=false. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches understanding.

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 it sets a breakpoint in a numbered slot (ZRCP set-breakpoint). Explains two methods: raw condition or type+address. Distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_breakpoint and list_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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use raw condition vs type+address. Directs to sibling tools for specific breakpoint types (e.g., set-membreakpoint for memory read/write). States that empty condition disables the slot.

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