debuggerListen

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds significant behavioral context: the call blocks/waits, it occupies the session, and the listener should be deleted when done. It does not mention timeout specifics or what happens on timeout, but the core blocking behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 paragraph that front-loads the most important behavior (blocking wait) and then explains the workflow and caveats. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value: the blocking nature, the workflow, the external-trigger limitation, and the session-occupancy warning.

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 blocking listener tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when it returns, how it fits into the debugger workflow, and the need to delete the listener. It does not specify timeout duration or error behavior, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the schema's full parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does explain the overall context (debuggingMode, terminalId, ideId, user are required). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Start listening') and resource ('breakpoint'), and clearly explains the blocking behavior: the call does not return until a process stops or the wait times out. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints and debuggerAttach by describing the wait-and-return shape.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: set breakpoints, start listening, then run the program from somewhere else (SAPGUI, a job, a service call). It also states what it is not for: 'Nothing in this server can trigger the program for you, so a listener with nothing to trigger it just waits.' This is clear usage guidance with an implicit alternative (external trigger).

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