user_sessions

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 explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]' and states that the IdP returns the whole session set, ensuring the listing is always complete. This goes beyond a simple read label and provides useful context about no truncation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core verb and object. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first line states what it does, the Args block explains parameters, and the Returns block specifies the output contract. No redundant content.

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 simple read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return shape, parameter provenance, and the completeness guarantee. It addresses the key information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: user_id is sourced from list_users, and target is an IdP target name from config with an explicit omit-for-default instruction. This provides all necessary semantic meaning.

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 opens with '[READ] A user's active sessions' and lists the returned fields (id, IP, start/last access, clients), clearly identifying the resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like client_sessions (client-scoped) and revoke_user_sessions (mutation) by focusing on a single user's active sessions.

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 user-specific scope implies when to use the tool, and the argument guidance ('user_id from list_users', 'target from config') provides context. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives like client_sessions or states when not to use it, so the usage guidance remains 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.