interactive_bash_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'active sessions' but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the output structure is (since there is no output schema), or any side effects. This minimal description leaves the agent to infer basic safety from the name.

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 short phrase, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. It contains no filler words, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing efficiency. For a simple list tool, this is well-sized.

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 a description that is just 'List of active interactive sessions', the return value and usage context are underspecified. An agent invoking this tool would not know what data to expect (IDs, names, status) or how to use the result. The schema helps with the filter, but the description lacks sufficient context for full invocation.

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 fully describes the single 'filter' parameter as a regex for session names (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient documentation.

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 '활동 중인 대화형 세션 목록' translates to 'List of active interactive sessions', clearly stating the action (list) and resource (active interactive sessions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like interactive_bash_create, interactive_bash_send, and interactive_bash_kill by focusing on listing, and adds the scope of 'active' sessions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical use cases (e.g., checking running sessions before sending input) or contrast with other listing or management tools. The filter parameter is present in the schema but not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent without contextual usage hints.

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