Debugger: List Breakpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'verified' (registered on the device) and 'queued' (waiting for the next halt to register), as well as the optional fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second enumerates the return fields with inline clarifications for the less-obvious ones. No filler, no redundancy, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Appropriate length for the information delivered.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so by listing each field with its meaning (verified, queued, optional fields). It covers the essential behavior of a read-only list tool; minor gaps like error cases or device-specific behavior are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 100% description coverage for the single optional 'device' parameter, fully explaining its semantics (Roku IP/serial, must match connected tab, omit for focused tab). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 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 description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('breakpoints the debugger is tracking for a device'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like debugger_set_breakpoints and debugger_remove_breakpoints. The field list further clarifies what is returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage for inspecting breakpoints (read-only) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like debugger_set_breakpoints or debugger_status. It does not mention when not to use it or any preconditions beyond the device parameter. Usage guidance is only implicit through the tool's name and read-only hint.

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