dump_session_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns diagnostics but does not specify if it's read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or details about response format (e.g., structured data, error handling). For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('return full session diagnostics') and lists the returned information clearly. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of session diagnostics and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions what information is returned but does not explain the format, potential errors, or how to interpret the diagnostics (e.g., what 'heartbeat age' indicates). For a tool that likely provides critical operational data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'venue' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('return full session diagnostics') and resources ('for a venue'), including what information is returned ('sequence numbers, latency, heartbeat age, and associated orders'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_fix_sessions' or 'session_heartbeat', which may have overlapping diagnostic functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'check_fix_sessions', 'session_heartbeat', and 'update_venue_status' that might relate to session monitoring or diagnostics, there is no indication of when this specific diagnostic tool is preferred or what scenarios it addresses uniquely.

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