Debug Inspect Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral context by revealing the exact internal state inspected (pid, alive status, buffer size) and its diagnostic purpose, which goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and output fields, the second provides the usage trigger and negative guidance. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant rephrasing.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the listed fields are enough for an agent to understand the result. No critical gaps are present.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for parameter documentation. With zero parameters, baseline 4 applies; the description needs no parameter details and adds nothing that could confuse an agent.

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 specific verb ('dumps') and resource ('daemon's internal state for every session'), including the exact data fields returned (pid, alive status, buffered character count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling terminal tools by framing it as a diagnostic inspection rather than a normal session operation.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('when a session seems stuck...') and when not to ('Not needed for normal use'), which is strong guidance. However, it doesn't name the specific alternative tools for normal use (e.g., list_terminal_sessions), so it falls just short of full routing.

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