mistral_list_sessions

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'active' and 'staging', which clarifies the filtering and session state, going beyond what annotations provide.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with 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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and zero parameters, the description is adequately complete. The description does not need to explain return values or specifics of 'active' since the output schema and tool context cover these.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100% with no properties. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.

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 'List active staging sessions' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly defining a list operation scoped to active staging sessions. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_inbox and list_recordings by explicitly naming the session context.

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 usage context is implied by the tool's name and sibling tools (e.g., create_session, finalize), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, so it relies on the agent inferring the appropriate context.

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