session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only enumerates return contents and says nothing about whether the call is side-effect free, whether an active/running session is required, how an invalid or null session_id is handled, or whether any blocking occurs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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?

One short sentence with the core concept front-loaded and every word carrying meaning. It lists the key reported contents without filler or restating the tool name.

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?

For a low-complexity tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description conveys the gist of what is returned. However, it is incomplete in the areas that matter most: session_id semantics (especially the null default), no when-to-use guidance against near-siblings get_stop_reason and list_sessions, and zero annotation coverage. Acceptable but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies the parameter's role via 'one gdb session'. It does not explain what session_id accepts, what a null (the schema default) means — e.g., current/last session — or what happens when the id doesn't match any session. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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 names the resource ('one gdb session') and the specific data returned ('state, inferior info, last stop reason'), which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like list_sessions (all sessions) and get_stop_reason (stop reason only). The verb is implicit ('gets'/'reports') rather than explicit, and sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated outright.

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 overlapping siblings such as list_sessions (enumerate sessions), get_stop_reason (a narrower query), or wait_for_stop (blocking). Usage must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'status of one gdb session', which is especially risky given that 'last stop reason' overlaps directly with get_stop_reason.

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