list_breakpoints

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

The description implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations, it must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, return format, or whether breakpoints from earlier sessions are included. The minimal statement is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately states the tool's scope (session-specific breakpoints). However, it omits details about the return structure, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.

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% (empty schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no information beyond the schema, restating the zero-parameter nature. No additional meaning is provided.

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 'list breakpoints set through this MCP session' clearly states the action (list) and resource (breakpoints), and implies a session scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint_on_text' and 'remove_breakpoint', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'paused_info' or 'set_breakpoint_by_url'). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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