Debugger: Set Breakpoints

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the pending behavior, the replacement of existing conditions on re-add, and the return of a breakpointId or error. This is valuable side-effect information that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not cover.

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 dense but efficient: a clear purpose sentence, a compact breakdown of the array structure, and then critical behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameters, the pending/queued behavior, return values (breakpointId or error), and re-add semantics. It does not detail error types or device matching specifics (which the schema covers), but is complete enough for correct use.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains path prefixing (bare paths get pkg:/), condition is a BrightScript expression requiring Roku OS 11.5+, and hitCount 'skips that many hits first'. These details enhance the schema's field descriptions.

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 ('Add breakpoints') and specifies the exact resource and structure of the breakpoints array. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like debugger_remove_breakpoints or debugger_list_breakpoints by the verb and object.

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 crucial usage context—breakpoints are only registered while the device is halted, and adds are queued as pending otherwise. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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