debug_get_current_state

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 mentions that Arch connects to live sessions and inspects execution state, which gives some context, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. It also leaves 'more' vague, leaving the agent uncertain about the full scope of the state returned.

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 one sentence and gets to the point quickly after a generic intro about Arch. It is concise, though the intro '[Arch Debug] Arch connects...' likely repeats across sibling tools and could be trimmed, but the core purpose is front-loaded and clear.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what state data is returned. It lists 'context, gather progress, flow state, and more', which gives a partial picture but omits the exact structure or any caveats. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The single parameter sessionId is fully described in the schema ('Session ID (uses active session if not specified)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable given the baseline for full 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('current agent state'), and lists specific components such as context, gather progress, and flow state. It is distinct from siblings in that it focuses on overall state, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools to differentiate from.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other debug tools like debug_get_span_tree or debug_get_errors. The description implies it is for current state, but it does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or when to choose an alternative.

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