Debugger: List Breakpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by defining the return fields, especially the distinction between 'verified' (registered on the device) and 'queued' (waiting for the next halt). This goes beyond the schema and helps predict behavior.

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 well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then compactly enumerates the returned fields. Every clause adds useful information, and the field list is formatted cleanly with backticks. There is no filler or 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?

For a read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape and field semantics. It does not mention pagination or related sibling tools, but those are not required for basic correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around edge cases like an invalid device identifier.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'device' parameter, including how it resolves and when to omit it. The description only says 'for a device' and adds no extra parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the breakpoints') and clearly scopes it to 'the debugger is tracking for a device'. Listing the emitted fields further clarifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like debugger_set_breakpoints or debugger_remove_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?

The description makes the read-only nature and device-scoped behavior clear, so an agent can infer this is for inspecting breakpoints rather than modifying them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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