debug_clear_breakpoints

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 states the core action but does not mention potential side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, whether an active debug session is required, or what happens if no breakpoints exist.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no redundant filler, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 description is minimally sufficient for a simple clear-breakpoints operation, and the schema documents both required parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks guidance on edge cases, side effects, or whether the operation is scoped to a specific debug session.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about session_id or file beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clear') with a precise resource ('all breakpoints in a source file'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like debug_set_breakpoints. It is unambiguous about the scope of the operation.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when all breakpoints in a file need to be removed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as debug_set_breakpoints for selective manipulation. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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