kd_break

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (halting the target and waiting for the prompt), but omits failure modes such as behavior when the target is not running, whether the break is idempotent if already at the prompt, what happens on timeout expiry, or whether detachment of the break is automatic.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the awaited outcome with zero filler. Every word earns its place for a tool of this simplicity.

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 two-parameter debugger-break command with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the action and the expected end state. Missing details like timeout failure behavior and prerequisite state (already attached vs. not) are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%: 'vm' and 'timeout' are both described in the schema. The description adds little parameter nuance beyond the schema, except that 'wait for the kd> prompt' reinforces what the timeout parameter measures. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but adds no extra semantic 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?

States a specific verb ('Break into') with a clear resource ('the running target') and the expected outcome (the kd> prompt). The action is clear and the intent is distinguishable from siblings like kd_go (resume), kd_attach, and kd_detach, though it doesn't name which sibling it differs from.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings kd_go (resume execution), kd_attach, and kd_state, an agent would benefit from knowing that kd_break halts a running target and should later be paired with kd_go to resume. Nothing about prerequisites (e.g., must already be attached) or exclusions is given.

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