client_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('[READ]'), the platform-specific error response format, and how to interpret it (as a capability answer, not a fault). It also specifies the return schema and truncation semantics, going well beyond the structured fields.

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 structured with a summary line, a platform caveat, an Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary context (platform limitations, error behavior, return shape) without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 platform-specific behavior, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: return format, pagination/truncation, error handling, and parameter prerequisites. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for all three: client_id ('Internal id, from list_clients'), max_results ('Page bound (default 200)'), and target ('IdP target name from config; omit for the default'). This adds real meaning beyond bare titles.

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 function: 'Active user sessions on one client (Keycloak).' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('client sessions'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like user_sessions by noting this is per-client and Keycloak-only.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('KEYCLOAK ONLY') and provides guidance for alternative platforms: on authentik, switch to user_sessions per user rather than retrying. It also references list_clients as the source for client_id, which is a clear prerequisite.

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