show_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the [READ-ONLY] prefix is somewhat redundant. The description adds context about managed-firewall scope and filter matching, but does not disclose behavior such as result limits, defaults, or what session details are returned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The CLI reference 'show session all filter' adds a little jargon but is still informative and compact.

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 read-only tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a typical use case. It is missing guidance on how it relates to get_active_sessions and does not describe what the returned sessions look like or how filtering interacts with device selection.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description only says 'matching a filter' without explaining which fields form the filter; undocumented parameters application and destination_port rely on their names and types for 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 clearly identifies the resource (active sessions on a managed firewall) and the operation (showing sessions matching a filter). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_active_sessions, but the core purpose is stated without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Useful while the user reproduces the issue' provides some diagnostic context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer the sibling get_active_sessions instead, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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