bisect_current

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the Kiln Pro licensing requirement, which annotations cannot express, but it does not say whether the call fails outside an active session or what 'progress' contains, and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. The '+' shorthand and the terse phrase 'progress' are slightly cryptic but do not waste space.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose and the licensing gate. With no output schema, though, it does not explain what 'candidate' and 'progress' actually return, which is the main thing an agent would want to know before calling it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema description already explains that session_id comes from bisect_start or list_bisect_sessions. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the explaining.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the current candidate and progress for a bisect session, which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings bisect_good, bisect_bad, and bisect_skip. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or list_bisect_sessions, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Saying it 'needs Kiln Pro' is a genuine prerequisite that tells the agent a tier gate exists, and the phrase 'for a session' implies an active bisect must already exist. However, the description never says to call it after bisect_start or to use list_bisect_sessions to find a session id, and it gives no when-not guidance.

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