debuggerListeners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that. It goes further by disclosing the backend's behavior when checkConflict runs with no listeners (raises a dump) and warns that stale listeners can prevent debug sessions from starting. These are behavioral traits not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then delivers the key usage and parameter caveats. Every clause earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and the pitfalls to avoid. Nothing essential is missing; the agent knows exactly how to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially for checkConflict, explaining the default false and the dump risk. This elevates the score above the baseline 3, though it doesn't elaborate on the other parameters since they are self-evident.

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 the tool lists debug listeners for a given user and terminal, with a concrete question ('who would catch a breakpoint right now'). It clearly distinguishes the tool as a pre-check query rather than a mutation, setting it apart from sibling tools like debuggerListen or debuggerDeleteListener.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Read this before starting one,' establishing the intended use case. It also gives precise guidance on the checkConflict parameter: it is off by default to avoid a backend dump, and should only be enabled when a listener is known to exist. This is actionable and unambiguous.

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