debuggerListeners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list takes. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'debugger listener' is, how the list is structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'retrieves a list of debugger listeners', which clearly indicates a read operation (retrieves) on a specific resource (debugger listeners). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerDeleteListener', or 'debuggerListen', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple debugger-related sibling tools (e.g., debuggerAttach, debuggerDeleteListener, debuggerListen), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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