loops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well. It explicitly states the results are exhaustive (every loop, not a sample) and that scanner warnings are returned separately. This gives useful behavioral expectations beyond a simple listing.

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 compact, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids padding while still conveying scope, output contents, exhaustiveness, and the handling of warnings.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what the tool returns, its purpose, its exhaustive scope, and the separate handling of warnings. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter, 'procedure'. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but the schema plus the tool's focus are sufficient for an agent to understand what to supply.

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 resource (loop headers in a procedure), what it returns (index variables, start/end lines), and its purpose (setting a conditional breakpoint). It is distinguishable from siblings like breakpoint and find_procedure, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'return' or 'list'.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need loop header information for setting a conditional breakpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the breakpoint-focused purpose is strong guidance.

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