DebugListBreakpoints

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

No structured annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; the inline "[read-only]" tag plus "Runs outside batch mode" do disclose safety and a mode restriction. It says nothing about whether it mutates armed state, what happens with a stale state_handle, or whether the result includes line numbers versus raw addresses.

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 short fragments with the mode restriction and read-only tag front-loaded — nothing extraneous. The telegraphic, verbless phrasing is efficient but costs a little clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should characterize the returned breakpoint records (fields, ordering, empty-result behavior) and it does not. For a small two-parameter read tool with a fully specified schema, this is adequate but leaves a clear gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, including an enum for detail, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no extra meaning about state_handle lifetime or how detail levels affect the breakpoint payload, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment "Breakpoints a debug session armed" names the resource and its scope, but never states the verb — the agent must infer "list" from the tool name. It does not distinguish itself from DebugListWatchpoints, which returns a different collection from the same debug session.

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?

"Runs outside batch mode" is a real precondition that tells the agent this cannot be invoked between BatchBegin/BatchEnd. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over DebugSetBreakpoints, DebugDeleteBreakpoint, or DebugListWatchpoints, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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