Identify the current DSH session: session ID, workspace, title, and running tool status. Use it to tell a human or another session where a note came from.
Identify which DSH session you are running in: session id, workspace, title, and whether a tool is currently running. Useful when you need to tell a human or another session where a note came from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and for a zero-parameter introspection call it does reasonably well by disclosing exactly what identity information is surfaced, including the live 'whether a tool is currently running' status. It never explicitly says the call is side-effect free or whether it requires an active session, which is the remaining 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?
Two tight sentences, with the identity payload front-loaded and the use case trailing. Every clause does work, though the phrasing is slightly loose and could have been trimmed further.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return values itself — and it does, listing session id, workspace, title, and running status. It stops short of specifying formats (e.g., id form, title source) or the relationship to session_detail, leaving a small but real gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead usefully characterizes the return payload, which is the relevant semantics for a no-arg call.
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 gives a specific verb (Identify) and resource (DSH session) and enumerates the returned fields: session id, workspace, title, and running-tool status. It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling 'session_detail', which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.
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?
It offers one concrete scenario ('when you need to tell a human or another session where a note came from'), which is implied usage guidance rather than an explicit rule. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as session_detail, so the agent must still infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.