Dbg List Bps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: it works without an active debugger, i.e. a safe read independent of session state. It does not state whether it is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what the listing contains, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the one caveat that matters. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it omits what a breakpoint entry contains and how instance_id/timeout affect the call. It covers the one non-obvious behavioral fact (no debugger needed) but not enough to be considered complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (timeout, instance_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all breakpoints'), which clearly distinguishes it from the add/delete/enable breakpoint siblings (dbg_add_bp, dbg_delete_bp, dbg_enable_bp). It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the 'list' verb plus 'all' scope is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'works without active debugger' gives a meaningful usage condition, implying it can be called before dbg_start. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance and no statement of whether a debugger session is preferred or what it means if one is running.

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