Run to source location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action and does not mention whether the breakpoint is temporary or persistent, whether the debugger must already be paused, or what happens if the location is unreachable. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like debugging tool.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler and effectively communicates the core action without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as breakpoint lifecycle, required debugger state, parameter specifics, and relationship to sibling tools. The description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. It vaguely references a 'script location' which maps loosely to scriptId and lineNumber, but it does not explain sessionId, columnNumber, or targetSessionId. Given five parameters, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 'Set a breakpoint at a script location and resume execution' clearly states the tool's specific action: it combines setting a breakpoint with resuming execution to reach a source location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_resume (which only resumes) and breakpoint (which only sets a breakpoint).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as breakpoint, debugger_step, or debugger_resume. It only implies usage by describing the action, but there are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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