session_diagnostics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partially covered. Beyond that the description does add useful context by disclosing what 'events' (recent GDB/MI records) and 'server_logs' (GDB server stderr) return, but it never explains the 'health' operation or the side effect of reconnect.

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 with the domain, then a compact enumeration, with two sentences of return-value context. Very little waste, though the 'what=health([reconnect]) | events | server_logs' notation is densely cryptic to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description is expected to convey return values; it covers events and server_logs but leaves the health result unexplained. For a 3-operation oneOf tool with 100% schema coverage, this is adequate but with a clear gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount by binding '[reconnect]' to the health operation, a linkage the oneOf branches don't encode, but it adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 the domain ('Session/transport diagnostics') and enumerates its three concrete operations (health, events, server_logs), so the resource and scope are evident. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like get_session or self_check, keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative. The reader can infer that the three 'what' values are selectable operations, but nothing tells them when diagnostics is the right tool versus get_session or self_check.

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