list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it delivers. It reveals that sessions survive bridge restarts, that the GET /session endpoint is directory-scoped, that the tool sweeps multiple scopes, that it prints swept scopes, and that a restarted bridge may miss sessions unless a directory is passed explicitly. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a clearly labeled IMPORTANT block for critical behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the length is justified by the complexity of the scoping behavior.

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?

Given the tool's moderately complex behavior and the complete absence of annotations or an output schema, this description provides enough information for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively. It covers the main use case, edge cases, and how to work around bridge restarts, making it complete for its context.

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 input schema already describes the directory parameter in detail (including why it exists and how to use it), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a little extra context by mentioning the restart scenario, but it does not substantially go beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List delegation sessions from the SERVER'. It also distinguishes itself from nearby tools by framing the primary use case as recovering a session_id after a failed delegate_task, making its role unique among siblings like task_progress or bridge_health.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to recover a session_id when a delegate_task failed without returning one.' It also explains the directory-scoped behavior and how to handle a restarted bridge. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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