gdb_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. It fully discloses the return format: an array of objects with fields like number, type, enabled status, address, etc. It notes it's structured data and easier to filter. It does not cover error cases, but for a read-only listing, this is adequate.

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 three concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields, third gives use cases and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and is efficiently structured.

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 tool's simplicity (list breakpoints, one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return values, usage scenarios, and how to obtain the required parameter. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (session_id) already described as 'Session ID from gdb_start_session'. The description repeats this, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List all breakpoints') and resource ('breakpoints as structured data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gdb_set_breakpoint and gdb_delete_breakpoint by focusing on listing. The verb 'list' and resource 'breakpoints' are specific and 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 description provides explicit use cases: 'verify breakpoints were set correctly, check which have been hit, and inspect their exact locations.' It also advises preferring this over text output for easier filtering. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear.

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