desmume_breakpoint_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses read-only intent through 'List', plus session scope and hit count data. It does not describe output format or potential lack of breakpoints, but these are minor for a list operation.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and object, making it immediately scannable.

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 parameterless list operation, the description provides key context: session scope and the data included (breakpoints and hit counts). Without an output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about return formatting, but the tool's simplicity makes this adequate.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, confirmed by the empty schema. A baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter information to convey.

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 ('List') and resource ('session-scoped breakpoints'), and adds 'hit counts' to distinguish it from add/remove breakpoint siblings. It clearly identifies the tool's function and output.

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 usage for inspecting breakpoints in the current session, which is distinct from breakpoint add/remove siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternative tools like desmume_status.

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