list_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that unverified/queued breakpoints report verified=false, that function breakpoints surface separately as functionBreakpoints, and that they are omitted when filtering by file. It stops short of error or auth behavior, but the return-shape disclosure is valuable given no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the core purpose plus return contents are front-loaded before the state/edge-case details. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, how function breakpoints are grouped, and the session states in which it works. Error handling is not covered, but the operational picture is otherwise complete.

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 'file' parameter is documented in the schema, and the description adds useful behavior around it (functionBreakpoints omitted under file filtering). 'sessionId' is undocumented in both places, matching the 50% coverage; the description implies session scoping but adds no format detail.

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 specific verb (list) and resource (breakpoints) scoped to a session, and adds what is returned (verified state, adapter-assigned ids). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_breakpoint, remove_breakpoint, and clear_breakpoints.

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?

Explains the temporal context in which it is valid (before launch, while running/paused, after exit) and notes the file-filtering mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the read-vs-mutate distinction against the breakpoint siblings is clear from the name and description.

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