Debug session status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for transparency. It uses verbs like 'reports' and 'lists', which imply a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), permissions, errors, or rate limits. It is minimally transparent but not fully explicit.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and the parameter's role.

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 simple status-check tool, the description is complete. It specifies the two modes of operation (specific vs. all) and does not need to elaborate on return values since no output schema is provided. The complexity is low, and the description covers all necessary aspects.

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?

The description fully explains the only parameter, sessionId, including its optionality (omitting it lists all sessions). This goes beyond the schema, which only lists the field name and type.

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 the tool's function: reporting status of a specific debug session by ID or listing all active sessions when ID is omitted. It distinguishes from sibling tools like debug_connect or memory_read by focusing on status retrieval.

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 implies usage for checking session status but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred or when not to use it, especially given the many sibling debug tools.

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