add_function_breakpoint

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), the description reveals that breakpoints persist across restart cycles, how to remove them, and when the break triggers (on function entry), adding valuable behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured: main purpose first, then situational guidance, escape hatch, persistence info, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a straightforward function breakpoint tool, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and lifecycle, making it fully self-contained despite lacking an output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section explains each parameter (function_name: 'Full or partial function name to break on', condition: 'Optional condition expression', hit_condition: 'Optional hit count condition'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 starts with 'Set a breakpoint on a function by name,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_breakpoint (line-based) and remove_function_breakpoint by explaining when to use (when method name is known but not 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you know the method name but not the exact line number'), provides escape hatch reference, and explains persistence and removal options, guiding the agent to appropriate alternatives.

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