edb_breakpoint_export

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

The description discloses the core behavior (exporting to disk) and idempotency is hinted by annotations (idempotentHint=true). It adds context about being equivalent to EDB's built-in feature. No contradiction with annotations; destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false align with a non-destructive export operation.

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 with three lines of purpose and a clear args/returns section. It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary information, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted arg description). Overall efficient.

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's simplicity (single parameter, well-defined output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, file format, import counterpart, parameter requirement, and return type. The output schema details the return, so this is complete.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the file_path parameter ('Full path to breakpoint file (JSON)'). The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 given schema coverage. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 'Export all breakpoints to a JSON file', identifies the specific resource (breakpoints), and distinguishes from the sibling tool edb_breakpoint_import by mentioning reload. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states that breakpoints can be reloaded later with edb_breakpoint_import, providing usage context and pairing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling pairing is clear.

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