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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results carry refs and completion status and that omissions fall back to defaults, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or scope breadth.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and returned scope front-loaded and no filler. Tightly written, though the trailing 'Legacy tests also supported' is a dangling caveat without any actionable detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with two of three parameters undocumented and a 'legacy tests' caveat left unexplained, the definition is only minimally complete for a tool whose targeting logic is its main complexity.

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 only 33%: blockId is documented in the schema while testId and runId carry only regex patterns. The description vaguely gestures at 'IDs from list_test_blocks to target a block/run' but does not explain the required testId format, the runId relationship, or the difference between omitting blockId vs runId, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (human sessions) and adds the returned scope: exact refs and completion status. It distinguishes itself from the singular get_human_session only implicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Gives partial routing guidance: 'Use IDs from list_test_blocks to target a block/run' and notes omission uses documented defaults. It never states when to choose this over get_human_session or how it relates to list_transcripts, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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