Check if a session is busy by viewing its running turn, sub-agents, background jobs, and handed-over runs before sending new tasks.
What a session is doing right now: its running turn, sub-agents (any depth), background jobs and reminders, plus runs handed over through dsh-baton. Check this before sending to a session that might be busy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the tool's scope (any-depth sub-agents, jobs, reminders, baton runs), which is useful and non-obvious, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, whether it blocks, how it behaves for an idle or unknown session, or what an error looks like. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the content enumeration is front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Every clause adds a distinct fact about coverage.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-value information — and it does list the categories returned. For a single-parameter read tool that is close to sufficient; only the idle/error case and the read-only guarantee are unstated.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents session_id. The description adds no format, scope, or id-resolution detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific resource (a session) and enumerates exactly what it reports: running turn, sub-agents at any depth, background jobs, reminders, and baton-handover runs. This is far more concrete than a generic 'get session status', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby siblings dsh_status or dsh_read_session, leaving the boundary to inference.
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?
Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Check this before sending to a session that might be busy.' That tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives (dsh_status, dsh_wait) or stating when this is the wrong tool, so it is context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.