ruyi_list_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait, but no additional details are given about side effects, prerequisites, or whether breakpoints are modified. It meets the minimal bar but lacks richer context.

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 that conveys the complete purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely adequate, but it omits any mention of the return format or any prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, the description should carry this information, making it minimally viable but not 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's action and scope without adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 all currently active soft breakpoints' uses a specific verb ('list') and clearly identifies the resource (soft breakpoints). It distinguishes itself from sibling breakpoint tools like `ruyi_set_breakpoint_on_text` and `ruyi_remove_breakpoint` by focusing on enumeration.

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. It simply states the function without any context about prerequisites, such as being attached to a browser, or when one might need to list breakpoints.

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