edb_set_catchpoint

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, indicating side effects. The description adds that execution stops on the event and returns a confirmation string, but lacks details on prerequisites, error states, or idempotency beyond the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes a parameter list that largely duplicates schema info. Minor verbosity but 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. However, the 'condition' parameter usage is vaguely explained (optional condition or syscall name/number) and no output schema details (e.g., error handling) are provided. Adequate but with gaps.

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 descriptions for both parameters (event and condition). The description repeats these verbatim, adding no new semantic meaning. Schema coverage is effectively 100% via the schema itself.

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 tool sets catchpoints for exceptions, syscalls, signals, or process events, and differentiates from siblings like breakpoints by referencing EDB's catchpoint feature. It lists specific event types, leaving no ambiguity.

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 catching system-level events but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like breakpoints or watchpoints. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, only a reference to EDB's catchpoint feature.

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