dbgprobe.breakpoint.set

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

Discloses important behaviors: software breakpoints work on flash and RAM, hardware limited to 4-6, symbol resolution requires an ELF. However, lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid address) and assumes an active session without stating consequences if session is invalid.

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?

Three succinct sentences with no redundant information. Key information is front-loaded: the action and then details about breakpoint types and symbol resolution.

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 breakpoint-setting tool with no output schema, it covers the essential behavioral and parameter context. Could mention that the breakpoint is set immediately or if it returns an ID, but overall sufficient given sibling tools and no annotation support.

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 75% (missing session_id description). The description adds context for symbol resolution and hw/sw differences, slightly enhancing the schema's parameter descriptions, but does not fully compensate for the missing session_id description.

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 the verb 'Set a breakpoint' and the target resource ('address or symbol name'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like clear and list by explaining the breakpoint types and symbol resolution.

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 guidance on when to use software vs hardware breakpoints and symbol vs address, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other breakpoint tools or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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