set_exception_breakpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('set a breakpoint that triggers') and timing constraint ('before a debug session starts'), but does not cover aspects like permissions needed, whether it's reversible, error handling, or response format. It adds some context but leaves gaps for a mutation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a timing constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the what and when, but lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects, error cases, or return values, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'exception' or 'session_id' further). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 verb 'set' and resource 'breakpoint' with specific functionality 'when a specific exception is thrown', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint' or 'set_call_breakpoint' by focusing on exceptions. It explicitly mentions the breakpoint triggers on exceptions, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use it ('when a specific exception is thrown') and timing ('before a debug session starts'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'set_breakpoint' for non-exception breakpoints. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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