list_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the operation as [READ], describes per-command aggregation, and adds the behavioral nuance of flagging sleeping sessions. It doesn't disclose permissions or side effects, but for a read-only listing this is adequate.

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 [READ] tag and main purpose, followed by a brief args list. No filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the key diagnostic behavior (flagging sleeping sessions), and both parameters. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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 'Args' section adds plain-language explanations for both parameters (include_sleeping and target), fully compensating for the schema's lack of property descriptions. This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 states 'Current sessions (processlist) with per-command counts' and specifically calls out flagging sleeping sessions as connection-pool leak suspects, giving a clear verb+resource+scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or lock_waits.

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 clearly implies usage for diagnosing connection-pool leaks by flagging sleeping sessions, and the [READ] tag suggests safe inspection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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