debuggerListeners

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Retrieves a list' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has any constraints. The agent is left in the dark about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise but arguably too terse. It repeats the tool name in the description without adding significant new information. It is not badly structured, but it under-delivers on content.

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 complexity of 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what a debugger listener is, what data is returned, or how to interpret the results. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema provides full coverage (100%) for all 6 parameters, so the description does not need to add much. However, it also adds nothing beyond the schema—no hints about how parameters interact or which are critical. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('debugger listeners'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen or debuggerStackTrace, which could lead to confusion for an AI agent selecting among similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or postconditions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other debugger-related tools.

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