add_function_breakpoint

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

The description states that the tool 'Breaks when the named function is entered,' which is a clear behavioral trait. The idempotentHint annotation confirms it is safe to repeat, and the description does not contradict any annotations. Additional details about side effects or permissions are not necessary given the annotation coverage.

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 very concise: one sentence for the purpose, one for usage context, one for escape hatch, and a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key information.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and partial parameter coverage in the description, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it. It includes an escape hatch reference for advanced use, adding completeness. Minor gaps remain in parameter format details, but overall it is adequate.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds brief explanations for each parameter: 'Full or partial function name to break on', 'Optional condition expression', 'Optional hit count condition'. These provide some meaning but are terse and lack examples or format details, making them only partially compensatory.

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 'Set a breakpoint on a function by name' and explains when it is useful versus alternative sibling tools like add_breakpoint. It distinguishes itself by targeting scenarios where the method name is known but not the line number.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when you know the method name but not the exact line number, implying that add_breakpoint is for line numbers. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is clear.

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