debug_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. It discloses the key non-invasive behavior ('without touching the target'), which is valuable, but omits prerequisites (active session), error behavior, and whether it alters or consumes session state.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 debug-session tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain what the 'summary' contains, the need for an existing session, or how to interpret results. An agent would have to guess at important call conditions.

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% and the description never mentions the required session_id parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema title 'Session Id'.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('debug session summary'), and the qualifier 'without touching the target' distinguishes it from siblings that mutate or directly inspect the live process (debug_continue, debug_read_memory). Clear enough for selection, though it does not name an explicit alternative.

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?

Provides an implicit usage condition ('without touching the target') but does not state when to choose this over debug_registers, debug_dump, or debug_close, nor when it is inappropriate. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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