debug_analyze_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (a list of diagnostic categories) and its automatic nature, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. For a diagnostic tool this is likely assumed safe, yet the lack of explicit disclosure limits transparency.

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 reasonably concise: a purpose statement, a bulleted list of outputs, and a usage note. The opening line 'Arch explains documentation, diagnostics, and system health signals' is somewhat vague and could be trimmed, but it does not significantly inflate length.

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?

With just one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's role and output categories. It omits error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid session ID), but for a diagnostic utility the provided information is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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%: the single parameter sessionId is already well-documented with 'Session ID to analyze (uses active session if not specified)'. The tool description adds no further parameter guidance, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get automated analysis and diagnostics for a session' and enumerates the categories of output (summary statistics, current state, detected issues, suggestions). This makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from more specific sibling tools like debug_get_current_state or debug_get_errors, which focus on isolated aspects.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this as a starting point for debugging - it identifies common issues automatically,' which tells the agent when to invoke it as an initial diagnostic step. It does not, however, name alternative sibling tools or describe scenarios where this tool would be inappropriate, leaving some room for inference.

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