列出会话

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuine behavioral trait – that the current scope is applied to the result set – but omits pagination, default limit, ordering, and what a session record contains, which are relevant for a 9-parameter listing 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?

A single compact sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity trades away useful detail rather than just trimming noise.

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 zero-required, 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimal: it covers purpose and scope behavior but leaves result shape, pagination, and default limit unaddressed. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition but with clear gaps.

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 89%, so the inline parameter docs already explain tag, file, since, until, state, topic, and source. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; '(scope 生效)' loosely relates to the project param but does not elaborate. Baseline 3 when schema does the work.

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 clear verb ('列出'/list) and resource ('本项目会话'/this project's sessions) with a filtering scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_sessions, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

'按过滤条件列出' implies a filtered-listing use case, and the '(scope 生效)' note hints at interaction with set_scope, giving implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of the search_sessions alternative for broader queries.

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