List breakpoints

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as what is returned or whether the session must be paused, but for a simple read-only listing operation the annotations already cover the core safety profile.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the operation and object; there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title. Every word earns its place.

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, a single optional parameter, and annotations that establish the read-only behavior, the description is largely sufficient. The main omission is that it does not describe the shape of the returned breakpoint list, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, and the sessionId parameter is already documented with its source ('from debug_launch/debug_attach') and when it is required ('when more than one session is live'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('List) and resource ('breakpoints in a session'), so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like debug_list_scripts or debug_list_sessions, but the named resource is distinct.

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 such as debug_list_scripts or debug_list_sessions, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The session context is only implicit in the phrase 'in a session'; the schema's note about multiple sessions is not part of the description.

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