Session status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a passive read of session state and enumerates the state dimensions returned, which is useful, but says nothing about error conditions (e.g., no active session) or whether the call blocks/waits.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the most important dimension (active/paused state) is front-loaded. It reads as a return-value list rather than a purpose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — it does so by enumerating the state fields. For a zero-argument status tool this is nearly complete; only the no-session/error case and relationship to sibling getters are unaddressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and there is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for.

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?

Names the resource (session) and enumerates the specific state it reports — active/attached, paused/running, breakpoint count, current stack. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from focused siblings like get_stack or list_breakpoints, though the phrasing is a noun list rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_stack, get_scopes, or list_breakpoints even though the status output overlaps with them. The agent must infer context from the description alone.

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