get_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it states the tool is safe and does not change debugger state, and lists the return fields. This mitigates the lack of annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states purpose and output; the second gives usage guidance and safety. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields. The tool has one optional parameter, and its behavior is fully described. Completeness is high.

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% for the single optional parameter. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the effect of omitting sessionId: 'omit to get bridge-level status only'. This adds meaningful guidance.

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 'Query the current state of the debugger and active session', specifying the verb 'query' and resource 'state'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'continue_execution' or 'step_into' by positioning itself as a state-checking tool.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this whenever you are unsure what state the debugger is in before issuing step/continue/breakpoint operations.' It implies this is a preparatory tool, though it does not explicitly list when to use alternatives.

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