breakpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that scanner warnings are returned separately when present, which is useful, and explains the computed condition logic. However, it does not state side-effect profile, return format, or error behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then expands with the key condition details. It is compact and readable, though slightly dense with the colon-separated elaboration.

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 single parameter and relatively simple conceptual scope, the description is mostly adequate. It conveys what is being computed and even notes the separate scanner warnings. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the exact shape of the returned locations or conditions, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter already includes a descriptive example ('aqu_d%rchrg'). The description reinforces that the variable is the focus of the analysis but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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's purpose: finding where to stop to watch a variable and under what condition, including routines that assign it and the loops enclosing those assignments. It is specific about the resource (variable) and the kind of result, though it reads more like an output description than an imperative verb+resource statement.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like writers, loops, provenance, or scope_at. The context is implied by the description, but there are no stated exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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