windbg_list_breakpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description clearly states it is a list operation (read-only) and maps to the cdb 'bl' command, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether it requires a running target, what the output format looks like, or whether it includes disabled breakpoints. It's adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that directly states the verb and resource, with a helpful parenthetical referencing the underlying cdb command. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

This is a very simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it does but does not explain the return format or any prerequisites like needing an active debugger session. For a complete beginner, it may be enough, but it lacks details about what 'all configured breakpoints' means in practice (e.g., whether it includes disabled ones).

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage vacuously. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add parameter context.

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 specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all configured breakpoints', and mentions the underlying cdb command 'bl' for disambiguation. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling breakpoint-related tools like windbg_set_breakpoint or windbg_clear_breakpoint.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: you use this tool to view breakpoints. However, there are no explicit instructions on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active debugger session). It doesn't mislead, but it provides no explicit guidance beyond the obvious.

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