edb_set_watchpoint

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying mutation. The description details the three modes but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., performance impact, persistence, limits). No contradiction with 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 well-structured: brief purpose, mode list, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 core functionality and parameters. However, it does not describe error cases or constraints (e.g., what expressions are valid). The return value is minimally described as 'Watchpoint details'.

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 explains both parameters with examples and enum values, adding significant value beyond the schema. Schema descriptions exist but the tool description clarifies usage and syntax.

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 a watchpoint') and resource ('to monitor memory access'), listing three modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like breakpoints by focusing on memory access monitoring.

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 provides three modes with default and examples, but does not explicitly state when to use a watchpoint over alternatives (e.g., hardware breakpoints or tracepoints). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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