list_breakpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Lists' clearly signals a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not mention the effect of the includeDisabled parameter, default behavior, or any side effects. For a simple listing tool the basic behavior is conveyed, but richer behavioral context is absent.

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 focused sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and the essential purpose is front-loaded without unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the core behavior is adequately stated. However, the description is thin: it omits the meaning of includeDisabled and provides no usage context relative to related breakpoint tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves an agent to infer important details about the single parameter and when to choose this tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter includeDisabled, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention includeDisabled at all, leaving its semantics to inference from the property name and default value. The schema's default true and property name provide partial meaning, but the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'current breakpoints and watchpoints', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinct from the sibling mutation tools breakpoint_set and breakpoint_clear, though it does not explicitly name them or contrast itself with 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like breakpoint_set, breakpoint_clear, get_monitor_state, or get_session_state. The description implies a read-only listing operation but gives no context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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