List debug sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: it scopes the listing to 'this MCP connection' and enumerates the output fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect. It doesn't describe pagination or ordering, but for a simple list operation that's acceptable.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then lists the output fields. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only list operation, the description provides all essential information: what it lists, the connection scope, and the fields returned. Annotations cover the safety aspect, and there is no output schema to require return-type documentation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds value by listing the returned fields, which serves as implicit documentation of the output. This exceeds the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'debug sessions', and specifies the exact fields returned (sessionId, state, pid, program, label). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug_list_breakpoints or debug_list_scripts, which target different resources.

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 implicitly signals this is the go-to tool for enumerating sessions on the MCP connection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling set and the tool's straightforward purpose, the usage context is self-evident. A brief mention of when to use it over other list tools would elevate it, but the intent is clear.

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