list_sessions_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses parallel fan-out execution, which is useful, but says nothing about partial failure handling (unreachable hosts), timeout behavior, or result ordering — all material for an all-hosts aggregator.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument list tool, though it is terse enough that a touch more context could have been added without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. What is missing is behavioral completeness for a multi-host fan-out (failure/timeout semantics) given the absence of any annotations.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage of 100% confirms no hidden inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ("Elenca") and resource ("sessioni tmux") and adds the scope "di tutti gli host", which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_sessions (single host). It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 "tutti gli host" scope implies when to reach for this over list_sessions, and "in parallelo" suggests it is a fan-out aggregate call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, leaving the routing to the agent's inference.

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