List visible chat sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the result ordering (newest first) and the visibility filter that excludes hidden sessions. It still omits return shape/pagination behavior, but for a simple read-only list this is a modest gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the ordering, then the reason to call it. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and only three simple optional parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool. Minor omissions (how many results return by default / pagination behavior) prevent a 5.

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 67%, with the query and source params documented in the schema and limit left undocumented there. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (nothing about limit, query, or source semantics), so it neither compensates for the gap nor exceeds the baseline.

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 and resource (lists chat sessions), scopes it precisely (local Claude Code and Antigravity sessions that are currently visible, not hidden), and names the ordering (newest first). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_hidden by specifying 'visible (not hidden)' and from hide_session by stating its goal ('find the one to hide').

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 trailing clause 'so you can find the one to hide' gives clear context for when the tool is used — as a discovery step before hide_session. It doesn't explicitly name siblings or state when-not to use it (e.g., use list_hidden for hidden sessions), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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