debuggerListen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the listener is long-lived, if it returns events asynchronously, or any side effects. This is a critical omission for a tool that likely manages state.

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 short sentence, which is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information that should be included (e.g., what events are listened for, how to stop).

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 (7 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in the debugging workflow or how the parameters affect behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like debuggingMode, terminalId, or checkConflict relate to the listening behavior.

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 specifies 'listens for debugging events,' which identifies a verb+resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling debug tools like debuggerAttach or debuggerStep. It fails to clarify the exact mechanism of listening (e.g., starting a listener session).

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. It lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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