create_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool launches a subprocess and describes the target semantics for each session type. It does not mention resource cleanup or failure behavior, but the launch mechanism and the distinction between live_attach (PID) and live_launch (exe path) add meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear bulleted list for the four session types. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of core session creation but omits details about optional parameters and session lifecycle. It does mention the next step (use execute), which helps integrate with siblings. Given the tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is not fully complete for advanced usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of 'type' and 'target' for all four session types, and 'args' for live_launch. However, it does not explain image_path, source_path, symbols_path, or engine_options, leaving significant gaps for 5 of the 7 parameters.

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 tool creates a CDB debug session by launching a cdb.exe subprocess. It details four distinct session types (live_launch, live_attach, dump, remote) with corresponding target definitions, which distinguishes it from siblings like execute or get_output.

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 explicitly lists the four session types and when each is appropriate (e.g., attach to a running process with a PID, load a dump with a file path). It also notes to use the execute tool after creation for sending commands, providing clear workflow guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_sessions or close_session, though the context makes this implicit.

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