设置断点条件

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds behavior details: it sets or modifies conditions, and passing an empty string clears the condition. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the modification mechanics.

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: two short paragraphs covering purpose, parameters, and two examples. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple two-parameter modification tool with no output schema, the description fully covers all user needs: what it does, how each parameter works, and examples for both setting and clearing conditions. It is complete given the complexity.

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 descriptions already exist for parameters. The tool description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'x>5', 'i==10') and explains the clearing behavior with empty string, which supplements the schema nicely.

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 sets or modifies a condition expression for an existing breakpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gdb_set_breakpoint (which creates breakpoints) by specifying it operates on existing 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 implies usage context: when you have an existing breakpoint and need to add/modify its condition. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but context signals show many sibling tools, and the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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