session_get_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool is cursor-based and stateful ('Pass the cursors back on the next call to get only what is new'), enabling incremental polling, and 'snapshot' implies a non-destructive read. However, it does not disclose whether an active session is required, what happens without one, or how the response/cursors are structured, and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose first, then the cursor protocol, then the cost-based usage rationale. Every sentence earns its place; the 'cheapest' claim doubles as usage guidance rather than fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden and it covers the core concept, the incremental pattern, and the efficiency rationale. It leaves gaps: whether an active session is a prerequisite, the shape of the returned snapshot (where cursors appear), and explicit naming of the three per-channel alternatives. Sufficient for a safe first call, but not complete guidance.

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 and the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds modest connective meaning by explaining the incremental pattern behind the cursor parameters, though it does not re-explain individual fields. Minor friction: the description says 'the cursors' (plural) while the schema exposes only log_cursor as an input.

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 a specific action and resource: it produces 'one snapshot of console output, network requests and DOM mutations together'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly offering the combined view 'instead of three separate calls', which maps to console_get_logs, network_get_requests and dom_get_mutations in the sibling list, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to observe 'the effect of an action' and because it is 'the cheapest way' compared to making three separate calls. The cursor sentence further defines the expected call pattern for successive retrieval. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, such as preferring console_get_logs/network_get_requests/dom_get_mutations when only a single channel is needed.

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