Get debug session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it retrieves events in addition to the session, but does not disclose any behaviors like pagination, limits, or error conditions. The read-only nature is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No word is wasted, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple read operation.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool (2 params, no output schema, readOnlyHint annotation). The description covers the essential purpose and return scope ('session and its events'), which is sufficient for a basic read. It lacks explicit mention of the 'limit' parameter and return format, but given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, it is nearly complete.

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 must compensate for both parameters (session_id and limit). The description implies session_id identifies the session but says nothing about 'limit', leaving it unclear whether it caps events or something else. This is minimal compensation; more parameter detail would be expected.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('one local diagnostic session and its events'). It differentiates from siblings like list_debug_sessions (which would retrieve multiple sessions) and create/close_debug_session (which are mutations).

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: it is for reading a single session. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling list shows many related debug tools, but the description gives no direct comparison, relying instead on the implied scope of 'one'.

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