list_breakpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active session, or what the output looks like, though the presence of an output schema slightly reduces the need to explain returns.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, its brevity leaves critical information unstated, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 one optional parameter with no description, no annotations, and numerous sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits how session_id affects results and how this differs from set_breakpoint, leaving the agent without enough context 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?

The description does not explain the single parameter session_id: whether omitting it lists breakpoints across all sessions or only the current session. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

States a clear verb 'List' and resource 'breakpoints', so the purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling 'set_breakpoint' or explain scope (e.g., per session, all sessions), which would help an agent differentiate it from related breakpoint tools.

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 versus alternatives like set_breakpoint, or how the optional session_id affects the listing. The description provides no context or exclusions.

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