gdb_start_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'start a session'. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., launching GDB, opening a console), state changes, or whether the tool is blocking or asynchronous. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving agents uncertain about return values.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient but at the cost of completeness. It could be restructured to include a brief usage note or prerequisite without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of starting a debugging session and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks essential details about session lifecycle, return value structure, and how it integrates with sibling tools. The context signals indicate high parameter coverage but the description does not compensate for the missing output schema explanation.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters. Baseline 3 applies; it does not exceed or fall below that.

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 action (start) and the resource (GDB debugging session for compiled C++ executable). It distinguishes the tool from sibling GDB commands, which mostly operate within an existing session, but it does not explicitly contrast with tools like gdb_open_console.

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?

No guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., GDB must be installed) or that this should be called before other gdb_* tools. The parameter description for executable mentions '-g' flag, but that is in the schema, not the main description.

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