session_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the active-session side effect but omits whether a previous session is closed, any prerequisites (e.g., a connected debugger), or what the return value or resulting state is. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second clarifies the behavioral consequence. No wasted words; front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides a basic understanding but misses preconditions and side-effect details, leaving some ambiguity about interactions with other session tools.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with meaningful details (e.g., 'Session name', 'Binary or dump being analyzed', 'Primary debugger'). The description adds little extra beyond emphasizing 'named', matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses explicit verb 'start' and identifies the resource as a 'new named debug session'. It also states the effect ('Sets it as the current active session for recording'), clearly distinguishing this from session_end, session_list, session_delete, and session_record.

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 intended context is clear: start a new session to make it the active one for recording. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but for a simple start command the usage is unambiguous.

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