session_peers

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. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description clarifies that it reports live sessions and active locks, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, permissions, or whether the result is scoped by visibility. For a read-only listing tool this is minimally adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the usage condition. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned listing, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema.

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 100%, and the single optional parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the default behavior, refusal of a different project, and cross-project lock listing. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List,' and names two concrete resources: the live sessions of this session's project and every active path lock on the session bus. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent tools such as team_status or get_project_state.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use before starting parallel work to see who is active and which territories are taken.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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