break_in

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It reveals platform-specific behavior (CTRL_BREAK_EVENT on Windows) and the conditional 'when possible'. This is valuable transparency. However, it does not describe the effect on the kd.exe process (e.g., whether it pauses or triggers a debugger break), but given the output schema exists, the return value explanation may be deferred.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Send a break signal to kd.exe') and appends a relevant platform detail. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic action but could be more complete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., kd.exe must be running via start_kd) or the expected outcome of sending a break signal (e.g., interrupts execution, opens a debug prompt). An agent might infer from context, but explicit completeness is lacking.

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 one parameter (session_id, type string, required) with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not mention or clarify this parameter at all. Since schema coverage is low (<50%), the description must compensate but fails to provide any meaning for the parameter, resulting in no added value.

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 action ('Send a break signal') and the target resource ('to kd.exe'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_kd' and 'stop_kd' which start/stop the process, or 'kd_command' which sends generic commands. No ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides a technical detail about Windows behavior but lacks guidance on context (e.g., 'use to break into a running kd session') or when not to use it. Implied by the name and action, but not explicit.

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