List Active Virtual Sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only scanning mechanism and the kind of data surfaced (session IDs, recipe counts, memory usage), but never states whether the call has side effects, whether it requires prior initialization, or whether inactive/persisted sessions are excluded — meaningful ambiguity for a discovery tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body repeats itself: the 'returned information includes' block duplicates what the output schema already provides, and the bullet list restates ground covered earlier ('manage multiple recipe workflows' vs. 'get an overview of current recipe analysis work'). Roughly a third of the text could be cut without losing information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, spelling out return fields is redundant rather than helpful, while the genuinely useful missing piece — how this differs from list_temp_sessions and when cleanup_virtual_session should follow — is absent. Adequate for a trivial zero-parameter tool, but not complete for disambiguation in a dense sibling set.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly makes no parameter claims, so there is nothing to mis-specify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: listing active recipe sessions held in memory, with the mechanism (scanning virtual session storage) named. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from the very similar sibling list_temp_sessions, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

A dedicated 'Use this tool to' bullet list gives five concrete situations (resume work, find cleanup candidates, get an overview, manage concurrent workflows, check name collisions). It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives such as list_temp_sessions or cleanup_virtual_session, so routing among sibling listing tools still requires inference.

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