list_breakpoints

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it only shows breakpoints created through this server, and explains the CDP limitation (no API to enumerate all breakpoints). This is valuable for setting expectations, though it does not detail the response format (which an output schema likely covers).

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 two clear sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and adds a useful caveat without any wasted words.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needs only to clarify the tool's scope and limitations, which it does thoroughly. The note about CDP's enumeration limitation is an important piece that makes the description self-contained.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing additional to explain.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'breakpoints tracked by this server', distinct from sibling tools like set_breakpoint/remove_breakpoint. It also differentiates by explicitly excluding breakpoints set via DevTools UI or other CDP clients, which removes ambiguity.

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 clear context: use this to list breakpoints set via set_breakpoint on this server. It implicitly warns against expecting externally-set breakpoints by stating they are not visible, which guides when not to use this tool. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the context is sufficient.

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