Create debug session

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses a key behavioral trait: it is non-mutating and creates only a local record. This gives the agent confidence that runtime state is unaffected, though it does not mention return values or persistence.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a safety guarantee.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves the function of parameters and the lifecycle of the session record unexplained, making it incomplete for practical use.

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% and the description makes no mention of any of the 8 parameters, not even the required title and question. The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide, making parameter selection a guessing game.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('local diagnostic session record'), and distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it only creates a record and does not change runtime state. This differentiates it from tools like apply_config_change or debug_inspect.

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 implies usage for creating a diagnostic session record without side effects, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives despite a large sibling list.

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