run_to_address

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: one-shot nature, continuation after setting, and stopping conditions (address hit, other breakpoint, or exception). With no annotations, this provides sufficient transparency, though it could mention error handling for invalid addresses.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes necessary conditions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity as a debugger action and lack of output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and stopping conditions. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though a note on return behavior would enhance it.

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 coverage is 100% and provides basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline. No extra context on formatting or validation is provided.

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 a one-shot breakpoint at a given address and continues execution, specifying when it stops (address reached or other breakpoint/exception fires). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_breakpoint (persistent) and continue_execution (no breakpoint).

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?

While the purpose implies use for temporary breakpoints to a specific address, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., step_into, step_over) or any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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