add_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what the tool does but omits important traits: whether simulation must be running, what happens when the breakpoint triggers, whether breakpoints persist across steps, and required permissions or session state.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than complete. It is front-loaded but too terse for a tool with behavioral side effects.

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 tool modifies simulation state and has two parameters, yet the description lacks context about the simulation session, signal path conventions, breakpoint behavior, and condition defaults. No output schema exists, so the description should do more to explain the effect of adding a breakpoint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely references 'edge or change' but does not explain the signal parameter format or the exact condition enum values (posedge, negedge, change) or the default behavior when condition is omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a breakpoint'. It also clarifies that the breakpoint applies to a signal edge or change. This is clear enough to distinguish from remove_breakpoints, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as step_simulation or remove_breakpoints. It does not mention prerequisites like an active simulation session or loaded design.

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