AFAIK, it does nothing to help here. But a solid leadership does help.
When it's an agile project, either devs will choose to do the right thing, or too many developers will work on new features, whether because it gives them more visibility or because they like working on features more. And when it's not agile, either you have a product/team manager that understands the importance of not drowning in tech debt, or you have a manager that constantly prioritizes features over quality.
Neither approach guarantees that the right choices will be made, just that in Agile, the developers mostly have themselves to blame.
It's funny that Agile is always something else. It cannot be criticized because then your are doing it wrong. It's like a theory which is not falsifiable.
don't get me wrong agile is an improvement in the sense that iterating on small deliverables is better than a single giant waterfall process, no disagreement there
but yeah if your tool never delivers in the alleged benefits, ever, anywhere, then it's not good enough to say the problem is the people
tools are welded by people
if your tool doesn't take that into account and assumes and requires its users to be perfect, well, then it's not a very good tool