add_watchpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the 'value' and 'mask' are hardware-dependent, which adds some transparency, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the debug target must be halted), error conditions, or the effect of adding multiple watchpoints.

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 concise, using a bullet-like list to explain parameters. No unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by grouping related parameters or providing a short example. It earns its sentences but is slightly terse.

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 complexity of a debugger tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected outcome (e.g., returns a watchpoint ID), prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted), or how to later remove the watchpoint (referencing 'remove_watchpoint'). For a tool often used in debugging flows, 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 0%, but the description provides brief explanations for all five parameters, including acceptable values for 'type' ('r','w','a') and typical 'length' values (1,2,4). However, it does not specify constraints like allowed address formats or the effect of default values. It adds moderate value 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?

The description clearly states 'Add a data watchpoint,' which is a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_breakpoint' (execution breakpoints) and 'add_conditional_breakpoint' by its focus on data watchpoints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate the purpose beyond the name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that watchpoints monitor memory accesses, whereas breakpoints halt execution at a specific address. The description lacks usage context or examples.

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