dsh_list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the storage location and sorting order, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it can fail (e.g., no sessions exist), or what the output format looks like. For a list operation, the safety profile is fairly obvious, but the description could add more context about edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key details (location, sorting). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does, where it looks, and how results are ordered. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or behavior when no sessions exist, but these are relatively minor for a discovery tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'workspace' is already documented in the schema. The description adds the context that the workspace is an optional filter, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: discovering and listing existing DeepSeek Harness sessions, with a specific location (~/.dsh/sessions/) and sorting behavior (most recent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dsh_run_task or dsh_web_status, which have different verbs and resources.

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 description implies usage context: it's for discovering existing sessions, which is distinct from running tasks or managing web services. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit guidance is missing.

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