Does a court instruct in the language of the instructions for possession of burglar tools?

trial court instructed in the language of the statute.² During deliberations, the jury sent a note, asking: "For the instructions for the charge of 'possession of burglar tools' point 2 required that 'he intended to feloniously break or enter into any vehicle.' Does this require that it was proven that he intended to use the tool for this purpose?" After conferring with counsel, the court responded in writing: "Interesting phrasing. Law requires possession with felonious intent to break or enter any vehicle." Shortly thereafter, the jury returned its guilty verdict. Defense counsel's seeming acquiescence in the court's written response to the jury after an unreported sidebar conference does not constitute waiver of the instructional error claim. (People v. Thompkins (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 244, 251, fn. 4.) However, we do not find error.