pyocd_breakpoint_set

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

With no annotations, description discloses that software breakpoints are lost on reset, hardware breakpoints are limited and don't modify flash, and that symbol requires ELF. Provides useful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose and condition, second explains tradeoffs.

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?

Covers purpose, parameter options, and behavioral tradeoffs. Does not explain return values, but an output schema exists. Could mention requirement for active session, but that is implicit.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. Description adds context on breakpoint type tradeoffs but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond the schema.

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 action (set), resource (hardware breakpoint), and conditions (address or symbol name, requires ELF). Distinguishes from sibling tools like breakpoint_clear and breakpoint_list.

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?

Explains tradeoffs between hardware, software, and auto breakpoint types, guiding when to use each. However, does not explicitly contrast with other debugging tools like watchpoint_set.

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