set_breakpoint_on_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds critical behavioral context beyond the input schema: the warning about minified code behavior ('this will break on the one-time assignment rather than the execution'), specific usage constraints, and workflow dependencies. This provides essential transparency for safe and effective use.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information without redundancy. The warning is appropriately front-loaded with 'CRITICAL AI WORKFLOW WARNING' to emphasize importance.

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 complexity (debugging operation with potential pitfalls), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the core behavior, critical constraints, and proper workflow integration. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, allowing it to focus on usage guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'text string' which aligns with the 'text' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'case_sensitive' or 'condition' parameters. While it adds some semantic context for the primary parameter, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap across all three parameters.

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: 'Finds a text string in all loaded scripts and sets a breakpoint at that location.' This specifies both the verb ('finds' and 'sets') and the resource ('text string in all loaded scripts'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'remove_breakpoint' or 'list_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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Do NOT set breakpoints on function names or assignment statements... Instead, ALWAYS use get_script_source to read the function body first, then set the breakpoint on a specific statement INSIDE the function body.' It names a specific sibling tool ('get_script_source') as a prerequisite for proper usage.

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