breakpoint

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

The description discloses that breakpoints trigger in both directions in rr sessions and that temporary breakpoints auto-delete after first hit. However, it does not cover other behaviors like whether setting a breakpoint interrupts execution, error handling, or return value, which are left unspecified.

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: two sentences plus a bullet-like list. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. There is no fluff or 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?

Given the complexity (debugger, 4 params, many siblings), the description covers key aspects: location formats, condition, temporary, and rr direction. It does not explain return values (but output schema exists) or error cases, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to three of four parameters: location (formats and examples), condition (expression syntax), and temporary (auto-delete behavior). session_id is not explained, but it's a common session identifier.

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 breakpoint at a location, with specifics about location formats and rr replay sessions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'watch' or 'delete_breakpoints', but the verb-resource pair is specific enough.

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 examples for location and condition but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., watchpoints). It implies usage through examples but does not state when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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