启用断点

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, which suggest a non-destructive state change. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'enable', so it meets the minimum bar given annotation coverage.

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?

Description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that the tool is idempotent or that it only works on existing breakpoints, but the annotations partially cover behavioral aspects.

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 covers the single parameter breakpointId with description. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema (e.g., specifying the number format). High schema coverage (100%) yields baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states it enables a breakpoint by number. The verb 'enable' and resource 'breakpoint' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like gdb_disable_breakpoint (disable) and gdb_set_breakpoint (set).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gdb_disable_breakpoint, gdb_set_breakpoint). The description only states what it does, without context for selection.

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