debuggerListen

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, whether it blocks, requires ongoing session, or how to stop listening. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide this information.

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 extremely concise (only 4 words), but this brevity sacrifices essential information. It is not well-structured as it lacks any contextual or usage details.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, lifecycle, or how to terminate listening. A more complete description is needed for such a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 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 states 'Listens for debugging events,' which is clear but vague. It does not specify the type of events or the nature of listening (starting a listener vs receiving events). Compared to sibling tools like debuggerListeners, the distinction is unclear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debuggerAttach or debuggerListeners. The description provides no context about prerequisites, session state, or typical use cases.

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