debuggerListen

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. It merely says 'Listens' without explaining whether it blocks, returns a stream, requires an active debug session, has side effects, or how it terminates. This is severely under-specified for a tool that likely sets up a persistent connection.

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 only one sentence, which is concise but not effectively so. This is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence carries too little information for a tool with 6 parameters and a complex domain. It doesn't earn its place because it doesn't add meaningful detail beyond what the name implies.

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 (debugger-related, 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what events look like, how to stop listening, whether it's a one-shot or continuous subscription, or how the parameters affect behavior. The tool is effectively unusable based on this description alone.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how parameters like debuggingMode, terminalId, or checkConflict interact or what role they play in the listening process. The schema descriptions are minimal but present, so the description doesn't degrade the score.

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' has a specific verb ('listens') and a resource ('debugging events'), but the resource is vague and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'debuggerListeners' or other debugger tools. It communicates a general activity but lacks specificity about what kind of debugging events or scope.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description gives no context about how this listener fits into a debugging workflow or when to choose it over sibling tools.

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