kd_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether a debugger session must be attached, or what happens if the VM is not reachable. The listed fields imply a snapshot, but the ambiguity about side effects and prerequisites is a significant 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?

The description is a short, front-loaded noun phrase with no filler words. It is concise and conveys the main topics immediately, but the verbless structure leaves just enough ambiguity that it falls short of a fully polished summary.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description identifies the major content areas (state, transport, target info, event, log path) but does not explain the return shape or behavior when conditions change, such as when no debugger is active. It is minimally adequate for a simple read state but leaves the syntaxy details unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% because the only parameter, vm, already has the description 'VM name as registered in vms.yaml'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the information the tool exposes: debugger state, transport, target info, last event, and log path. This clearly signals a query/status tool rather than an action tool, which helps differentiate it from siblings like kd_break or kd_go. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'show', so it stops short of the ideal 'specific verb + resource' formulation.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibcoproducts are mentioned. The intended use (query debugger info for a VM) is only implied by the tool name and noun-phrase description, so an agent gets no concrete criteria for choosing this over kd_log_tail, sys_state, or other read-oriented tools.

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