bisect_current

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 does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates the session or advances state, what 'progress' contains, or what happens with an invalid or expired session_id. The licensing boilerplate does hint at a paid-tier gate, but that is incidental marketing rather than deliberate behavioral disclosure.

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 useful sentence is front-loaded, which is good, but three of the four sentences are unrelated upsell copy about mid-print edits and textures that does not help an agent invoke this tool. The signal-to-noise ratio is poor.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the return shape (what a 'candidate' and 'progress' look like) and the tool's place in the bisect workflow, and it does neither. An agent can guess it is a status read, but cannot know what it gets back or how it relates to the other bisect tools.

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?

The single required parameter session_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'for a session' without adding format, origin (e.g., from bisect_start or list_bisect_sessions), or validity constraints. It adds essentially no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: return the current candidate plus progress for a session. However, 'candidate' is undefined jargon (a bisect candidate version of what?) and nothing distinguishes this from the many bisect_* siblings (bisect_start, bisect_good, bisect_bad, bisect_skip, bisect_end). The remaining three quarters of the text describe subscription tiers, not the tool's purpose.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_bisect_sessions, bisect_start, or the good/bad/skip markers, and no mention of prerequisites such as having an active session. The only conditional content ('Requires Kiln Pro') reads as a generic upgrade banner rather than tool-specific guidance.

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