diagnostic_session_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It does not explain that this is a state-changing ECU control operation, what the session switch affects, permission or ignition requirements, or possible negative responses.

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 very compact and front-loads the service identifier and parameter values. It wastes no words, though its extreme terseness contributes to gaps handled under other dimensions.

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 state-changing diagnostic control service with no annotations and a safety-relevant automotive context, the description is incomplete. The output schema can cover return values, but prerequisites, session effects, and response handling remain undocumented.

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 usefully lists accepted session values (default, programming, extended, safety, or a hex number), but it does not explain each session's semantics, the expected hex format, or the schema default of extended.

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 identifies the UDS service as 0x10 DiagnosticSessionControl and lists possible session values, so an automotive-aware agent can infer the tool changes diagnostic sessions. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not plainly state the effect or distinguish it from sibling diagnostic services.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as security_access or tester_present. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for selecting a specific session.

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