editor_get_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List all breakpoints' without specifying that it is a read-only operation, any dependencies on the editor state, or the structure of the returned 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?

The description is a single sentence with minimal words, directly stating the operation. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and object, with no superfluous content.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is largely sufficient, but the lack of an output schema and annotations means it would benefit from noting the return format or any side effects. Overall, it provides adequate context for such a simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no configuration is required.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'breakpoints', indicating the tool retrieves all breakpoints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_set_breakpoint and editor_remove_breakpoint, which modify 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or why one might choose this over related tools like editor_get_selection or editor_debug_break.

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