Retrieve a specific session's projection from locally captured C/C++ fault artifacts, keeping observed, static-candidate, and unresolved evidence separate for accurate debugging.
Return one session projection without merging evidence classes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | No | evidence.sqlite3 | |
| page | No | ||
| end_ns | No | ||
| start_ns | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| trust_state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait—no merging of evidence classes—but says nothing about read-only status, pagination, authentication needs, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and no annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too terse for a six-parameter tool and does not structure any usage or parameter guidance. Conciseness here edges toward under-specification.
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?
The tool has six parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only one sentence and omits parameter meanings, usage context, and behavioral details. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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% across six parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Required parameter session_id, optional filters like start_ns/end_ns, trust_state, page, and db are left completely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return one session projection.' It also adds a scope qualifier, 'without merging evidence classes,' but does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_session_manifest or list_sessions. The purpose is understandable, though 'projection' is domain-specific jargon.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without merging evidence classes' hints at a specific condition, but it does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.