add_logpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states that execution isn't stopped. It lacks details on permissions needed, whether logpoints persist across sessions, rate limits, or what happens when added (e.g., immediate activation). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and key behavior, the second provides a critical usage tip for placeholders. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'add' entails (e.g., success/failure response, logpoint ID returned), prerequisites, or error conditions. Given the complexity of debugging operations and rich sibling tools, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning placeholder syntax for the 'message' parameter, but doesn't clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add a logpoint') and its function ('logs messages without stopping execution'), distinguishing it from breakpoints that halt execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint' or 'set_exception_breakpoint' beyond the non-stopping behavior.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_breakpoint' (which stops execution) or 'add_watch' (which monitors variables). It mentions the placeholder syntax but offers no context for tool selection among the many debugging siblings.

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