start_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (session_id), notes binary can be set later via exec_command, and explains each parameter's role. However, it does not discuss failure modes or what happens if a session already exists.

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 concise with two main parts: a purpose sentence explaining the return value and alternative usage, followed by three bullet-style parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description provides enough context: it mentions the session_id return, explains all parameters, and suggests an alternative. It lacks details on failure scenarios or preconditions, but covers the essential aspects for usage.

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%, so the description compensates fully. It provides clear inline explanations for each parameter: binary (path, can be set later), args (command-line arguments), and cwd (working directory), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts a GDB debug session and returns a session_id needed by all other tools. It distinguishes from siblings like start_replay_session and rr_record by explicitly mentioning the alternative for time-travel debugging.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (to start a new session) and explicitly suggests alternatives for time-travel debugging (rr_record + start_replay_session). It also mentions the session_id is required by all other tools, providing clear usage context.

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