Debug Session Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies what is inspected (lifecycle state, stop, DAP events, bounded stderr) and explicitly confirms no target execution change. The word 'bounded' also hints at output limits. This goes well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences cover the full scope and intended usage with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the inspection target and side-effect-free nature, and the second provides concrete use cases and exclusions. Every clause 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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, an existing output schema, and a description that explains both the contents inspected and the intended decision-making context, nothing essential is missing. The agent can safely call this tool based on the description alone.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed at all, and the description correctly omits any irrelevant parameter talk.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with an explicit resource list: debugger lifecycle state, selected stop, recent DAP events, and bounded adapter stderr. It also contrasts the tool with action-oriented siblings by stating it does not resume, launch, attach, or terminate, making its role within the sibling set clear.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to determine session state before choosing another debug tool. It also states what it is not for ('does not resume, launch, attach, or terminate'), but it does not name specific alternative tools, relying on 'another debug tool' as a generic reference. This is clear context with no named alternatives, so it fits a 4.

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