debug.watch

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is too brief to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, persistence, or triggers. It fails to inform the agent about what happens when the watchpoint is hit or any prerequisites.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it lacks structure or front-loading of key information. Given the simplicity, it suffices.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description omits essential contextual details like what happens when the watchpoint triggers, potential performance impacts, or limitations. It is not fully complete for an agent to reliably use.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (class_pattern with example, field with field name). The tool description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 a watchpoint that triggers when a field is modified, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It implicitly distinguishes from line-based breakpoints (e.g., debug.set_breakpoint) through the name and description.

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 a watchpoint versus alternatives like debug.set_breakpoint or debug.exception_breakpoint. The description does not provide context for usage decisions.

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