list_breakpoints

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

The word 'List' conveys a non-mutating read operation and the inclusion of 'watchpoints' adds useful behavioral scope. However, with no annotations provided, the description should clarify whether 'all' means the current session or across sessions, and it does not describe what the caller receives in return.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. The action and target are front-loaded and the text is easy to scan, though it could trade a little brevity for parameter clarity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should state the role of session_id and what the returned enumeration looks like. Both are missing, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's actual scope and output.

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 description completely ignores the only parameter, session_id, which has 0% schema description coverage. It does not explain whether session_id filters the results, what a null value means, or whether 'all' is global or session-specific.

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 a specific resource ('all breakpoints/watchpoints'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It clearly distinguishes this read-only listing operation from mutation siblings like set_breakpoint and manage_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer an alternative. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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