start_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Starts analysis session' and 'Returns session ID', which implies a stateful operation and output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it consumes resources or locks files), error handling, or session lifecycle implications, which are critical for a tool that initiates analysis.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose, requirements, and return value. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and easy to parse without any fluff.

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 (starting a stateful analysis session with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which likely covers the session ID return), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and key inputs but lacks depth on behavioral aspects and optional parameters, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional context.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'vmcore and vmlinux paths' for the two required parameters, adding some meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it omits the optional 'ssh_host' and 'ssh_user' parameters entirely, and doesn't explain what these paths represent or their expected formats, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Starts analysis session') and the resource ('analysis session'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_crash_command' or 'run_drgn_command' which might also involve analysis sessions, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 mentions that it 'Requires vmcore and vmlinux paths', which provides basic prerequisites but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_crash_command' or 'stop_session'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage or comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer context.

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