gdb-multiarch-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'by number' identifier but fails to explain that this is a state-mutating operation, that disabled breakpoints remain in the list but won't trigger, or that the operation is reversible via gdb_enable_breakpoint.

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 exactly 5 words, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero redundancy. Every word is essential to understanding the tool's scope.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of annotations (no destructiveHint) and no output schema, it misses opportunities to clarify the temporary nature of the action and its relationship to sibling enable/delete operations.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'number' parameter is described as 'Breakpoint number'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces this with 'by number' but adds no additional semantic value regarding constraints, valid ranges, or the source of the breakpoint number.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disable') that clearly differentiates from siblings like gdb_delete_breakpoint, gdb_enable_breakpoint, and gdb_set_breakpoint. It identifies the resource ('breakpoint') and the specific identification mechanism ('by number'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 verb 'disable' implies temporary deactivation (contrasting with 'delete'), the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over gdb_delete_breakpoint or mention that gdb_list_breakpoints should be used first to obtain the number. Usage is implied but not guided.

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