clear_all_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action (clearing all breakpoints) and return value (number of cleared). However, it does not specify scope (e.g., current session, all devices) or potential side effects, which could be important in a debugger 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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose and return value.

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 zero parameters and a clear action, the description is nearly complete. It tells what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks context about the scope (e.g., 'current debugging session' or 'all devices'), which could be inferred but is not explicit. Sibling tools provide some context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description must and does explain the tool's behavior and output. It adds meaning beyond the empty schema by stating what is cleared and what is returned.

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 '清除所有已设置的断点' (clear all set breakpoints), specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'clear_breakpoint' (singular) by targeting 'all' breakpoints.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The name implies usage when all breakpoints need removal, but alternatives like 'clear_breakpoint' are not mentioned, leaving the context implied.

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