list_breakpoints

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('list'), but does not explicitly state safety (non-destructive, no side effects). No detail on behavior like order, filtering, or limits.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action and scope.

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 no output schema, the description could be more helpful by specifying what information each breakpoint includes (e.g., location, ID, enabled state). As is, it is minimal but functional for a simple listing tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description confirms the tool takes no arguments, which is consistent and adds no additional meaning but is accurate.

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. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('breakpoints'), and is unambiguous. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like set_breakpoint and 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_debugger_state, which might also provide breakpoint info. The description does not mention use cases or exclusions.

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