list_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: sessions are local, reverse-chronologically ordered, and are text records that can be Git-committed, replayed, and exported. However, it does not mention side effects (or their absence), permissions, or output behavior, leaving part of the behavioral profile undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loads the core action and resource. The second sentence adds useful context about what sessions are. The unexplained '【递纸】' prefix is a minor distraction, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, so the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what fields or structure the returned session list will have. It hints at the nature of sessions but not the actual response format, leaving a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema already covers this fully. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: '列出本地保存的手写会话' (list locally saved handwriting sessions), with an additional ordering detail (reverse chronological). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_session, export_session, and get_handwriting, which concern creation, export, and individual retrieval rather than listing.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to see locally saved handwriting sessions. However, the description does not provide explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools such as export_session or get_handwriting. There are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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