List debugger blackboxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't state whether an active session is required, whether results are paginated, or what the return format looks like. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description should clarify what the list contains, how it is returned, or any preconditions (e.g., active session). It merely states the resource and scope, leaving the agent to guess at behavior and return structure.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter, sessionId, is not explained in the description. The phrase 'for a Raw session' loosely connects to sessionId, but it lacks detail about the expected format, semantics, or how it relates to other session tools.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('blackbox patterns'), and the scope ('maintained for a Raw session'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like blackbox_add and blackbox_add_common, which add patterns rather than listing them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'maintained for a Raw session' hints at a session context, it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or why one would choose this over other debugger tools.

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