DebugListWatchpoints

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

With no annotations, the description self-declares read-only via the [read-only] tag and discloses the batch-mode exclusion and stopped-debuggee precondition, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not describe permissions, state_handle lifecycle, or what a returned watchpoint contains.

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 bracketed/fragment clauses, front-loaded with the safety tag and domain, with no wasted text. The trade-off is that the terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally would hint at what a listed watchpoint looks like and how the detail level affects it. For a simple read-only list with fully documented params, it is adequate but leaves the return shape and session requirements implicit.

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%, so both parameters (detail enum and state_handle) are fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the specific resource — watchpoints — of a stopped debuggee, which cleanly separates it from the sibling DebugListBreakpoints (breakpoints) and DebugCreateWatchpoint/DebugDeleteWatchpoint. The verb is only implied by the tool name and the noun-phrase fragment, so it is clear but not stated as an explicit action.

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?

"of the stopped debuggee" implies the precondition that a debug session must be paused, and "Runs outside batch mode" excludes one context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g. DebugListBreakpoints for breakpoints) or states when to prefer this over them.

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