daemon_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes into exceptional detail about what is returned, including conditions like 'when available' for workspace-pin provenance and 'on a mismatch' for protocol revision. It also reveals performance-related data (tool-call count, slowest calls) and config-store state, giving a thorough picture of the tool's observational nature.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, but it consists of one extremely long, comma-heavy sentence that enumerates many details. While every detail is informative, the lack of sentence breaks makes it harder to parse. A shorter, bulleted or multi-sentence structure would improve readability without losing content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (no output schema, no annotations), the description compensates fully. It covers all return categories, conditional behaviors, and usage context, making it self-sufficient for an AI agent to understand what to expect. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the exhaustive list of returned metadata fields.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% schema coverage by default). The description need not explain parameter meanings. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need to compensate further.

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 'Returns metadata about the current MCP session and daemon process' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact aspects covered (session name, ID, daemon version, etc.), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like workspace_symbols or read_file. The closing 'Use this to identify which session you are operating in or to verify the daemon state' reinforces the purpose.

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 on when to use the tool: 'Use this to identify which session you are operating in or to verify the daemon state.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the uniqueness of the tool among its siblings, the context is sufficient.

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