list_breakpoints

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'list all currently set breakpoints with their status,' which is minimally informative. It does not mention whether the list includes only active breakpoints or also disabled ones, how status is represented, or whether there are any side effects (e.g., reading debug state). Though the tool is likely read-only, this is not explicitly stated, and there is no indication of whether it will trigger a refresh or is safe to call frequently.

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 short—a single clause—so it does not waste words. However, it is too brief to be considered properly structured; there is no front-loading of key details or any logical flow. For a tool with no parameters and a simple purpose, a few more words would make it complete without harming conciseness.

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?

Since the tool has no parameters, a simple description might suffice, but it fails to clarify what 'status' entails and how the output is formatted (even though an output schema exists). The sibling tools include many debugging actions (set_breakpoint, delete_breakpoint, get_debugger_status, etc.), so failing to distinguish this from get_debugger_status or to mention that it only lists breakpoints (not all debugger state) leaves a gap. The description should at least say 'lists all breakpoints set in the current session/workspace.'

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially satisfied). The description does not need to explain parameters, so this is acceptable. There is nothing to add beyond the schema here.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'breakpoints' clearly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_breakpoint, delete_breakpoint, and enable_breakpoint, which are about individual breakpoint actions. However, the phrase 'with their status' is vague, and the tool could be confused with get_debugger_status, which might also mention breakpoints. A more explicit 'all breakpoints currently set' would improve clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_debugger_status, set_breakpoint, or list_bookmarks. For example, it doesn't say 'use this to inspect all breakpoints before debugging' or 'this does not show hardware breakpoints.' Without any usage context, the agent cannot decide when to prefer this tool over others.

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