MCP Session Saver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, whether there are pagination limits, or if it requires specific permissions. The description focuses on trigger phrases rather than operational behavior.

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 reasonably concise but could be more focused. The first sentence establishes purpose, but the trigger phrase examples and Chinese characters '【列出会话】' add some redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the trigger phrase list could be more efficiently integrated.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'session' represents in this context, what information is returned in the list, or how the filtering actually works. The focus on trigger phrases doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context needed for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions filtering by IDE and date, which aligns with the schema parameters, but doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: listing sessions with filtering capabilities. It specifies the verb '列出' (list) and resource '会话' (sessions), and mentions filtering by IDE and date. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_sessions' or 'read_session', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance through example trigger phrases like '查看会话列表' and '列出所有会话', suggesting this tool is for viewing session lists. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_sessions' or 'read_session', and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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