scout_sessions

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "List" strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the key behavioral signal, but nothing is said about permissions, token/session freshness, or side effects. It is minimally viable rather than informative.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing; the verb and resource lead. The parenthetical source list is compact, though the L1/L2 notation is cryptic without an external glossary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be described, and there are no parameters to document. What is missing is the usage context (when to call this versus the sync_* siblings) and any hint of what the registry status means to the agent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description does not need to explain any input.

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 clear verb ("List") and resource ("unified session/cookie registry") with the specific sources it covers (GSXT L1, aiqicha L2, ENScan mirror). This distinguishes it from siblings like sync_gsxt_session and sync_enscan_cookies (which mutate sessions) and from the enterprise_* tools. The parenthetical jargon (L1/L2) is slightly opaque but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the read-side companion to sync_gsxt_session/sync_enscan_cookies, which is a reasonable inference but not stated. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to simply running scout_doctor.

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