debug_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses the conditional output shape (PC/LR/SP and source line only 'when halted'), which is genuine value, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, side effects, whether it blocks, or what happens with an invalid/terminated session.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact Args/Returns blocks. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is padded or wasted.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter read: purpose, parameter provenance, and return contents are covered, and an output schema exists so return shape need not be spelled out. Missing is the runtime context an agent needs — liveness/precondition of the session, error behavior, and whether polling is expected.

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 coverage is 0% for the single session_id parameter, but the description supplies its provenance ('Session ID from debug_session_start'), which is real meaning beyond the schema. It still does not state the failure mode for a stale/unknown ID or whether the session must be alive.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (debug session status) and enumerates the payload: core state, location, breakpoints, watchpoints. This distinguishes it from debug_registers (register dump) and debug_backtrace (stack unwind), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the polling/inspection call for an active session. It does not say when to prefer it over debug_wait_halt (for blocking on a halt) or debug_registers when only registers are needed, and no preconditions (e.g. session must be started) are stated.

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