edb_set_breakpoint_ignore_count

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that setting count=0 means 'don't skip' and notes equivalence to GDB's ignore command. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 a clear main sentence, an analogy, a use case, and a structured parameter list. Every part adds value; no redundant content.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers core functionality, usage, and parameters. It lacks explicit mention that the tool modifies an existing breakpoint, but the idempotent hint and context make this clear. Overall adequate.

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 description clarifies the parameters (number and count) beyond the schema, especially explaining count=0 semantics. The schema already has descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context like 'Skip count (0 = don't skip)' and the GDB analogy.

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: 'Set the number of times a breakpoint should be ignored before stopping.' It names the resource (breakpoint ignore count) and differentiates from sibling tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_set_breakpoint_condition by specifying the ignore count functionality.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for skipping a breakpoint N times (e.g., in a loop) before breaking.' While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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