breakpoint_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly notes that logpoints log and continue without pausing, but omits other behaviors (e.g., state changes, required debugger connection, error handling).

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 concise sentences with no filler. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 has 5 parameters, sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. Missing context: prerequisites (debugger attached), success/error behavior, or return value.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions conditional, hit-count, and logpoint, which map to parameters, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Set a line breakpoint in a source file', which is a specific verb+resource. It also lists supported breakpoint types (conditional, hit-count, logpoint), distinguishing it from sibling tools like breakpoint_set_function or breakpoint_set_data.

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 implies usage for line breakpoints but does not explicitly contrast with alternative breakpoint-setting tools (e.g., function or data breakpoints). No guidance on when to use logpoint vs regular breakpoint.

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