debuggerListen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Listens for debugging events' gives no information about whether this is a blocking or non-blocking operation, what permissions are required, whether it's read-only or mutative, what events are captured, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence fails to provide necessary context for a tool with 6 parameters and multiple sibling tools. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness - this description is simply incomplete.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the name, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results are returned. The agent would be operating almost blindly when invoking this tool.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero additional parameter context - it doesn't explain what 'debuggingMode' might contain, how 'terminalId' relates to the listening, or what the conflict checking parameters actually do. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate despite the description's lack of contribution.

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 'Listens for debugging events' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerListen'. While it indicates the general domain (debugging), it doesn't specify what type of listening occurs (real-time monitoring? event logging?), what resources are involved, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'debuggerListeners' or 'debuggerAttach'. The purpose remains vague beyond the obvious.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple debugger-related siblings (debuggerListeners, debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints, etc.), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation. The agent would have no basis for choosing this tool over others in the same domain.

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