Reads actual RAD breakpoint configuration and observed hit counts for a debug session, so you can verify which breakpoints are set and how often they triggered.
Read actual RAD breakpoint configuration and observed hit counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful nuance beyond the annotations — that it returns the real runtime configuration plus observed hit counts, not declared config — but says nothing about session requirements, error behavior, or ordering.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; "actual" and "observed hit counts" both carry information. It is close to under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape details are not required, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is scope: the description never states that the listing is per-session (the sole required argument), which is the main thing an agent must know to call it correctly.
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 0%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be supplied, and it contributes nothing. session_id is required but never mentioned; the description does not say results are scoped to the given debugging session or what happens with an invalid/ended session.
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?
Specific verb+resource: "Read actual RAD breakpoint configuration and observed hit counts." It is clearly a read/list operation, distinguishable in spirit from rad_set_breakpoint and rad_remove_breakpoint, though it never names those siblings or states that it returns the full list.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to inspect breakpoints rather than mutate them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an active stopped session), and no routing away from rad_get_state or rad_set_breakpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.