dbg_list_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool lists breakpoints (implying read-only) and scopes to a session, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or describe behavior on empty/invalid sessions. It adds some value beyond the name.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and a key output detail.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the action, scope, and a key aspect of the output (stable handles). Minor gaps exist (e.g., output format) but are not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'in this session', indirectly relating to session_id, but does not explicitly define the parameter's role. This is adequate for a single required parameter but could be more direct.

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 lists all breakpoints in the session, with stable handles. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('breakpoints'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like dbg_set_breakpoint and dbg_remove_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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or state requirements. It simply states the function without usage context.

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