list_editor_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about listing only MCP-enabled local editors and the existence of session IDs, but it does not disclose details like output format, pagination, or what happens if no editors are available. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list tool, but not especially rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and resource; the second gives the actionable follow-up. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent list operation, the description is complete. It says what is listed, that the results are session IDs, and how to use them. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently implies the return shape and purpose.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. The mention of selecting a session ID from the results implies the important value this tool returns.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('MCP-enabled local Wulfram Forge editors'). It also clarifies the intended next step ('Select an explicit session ID for subsequent tools'), which distinguishes this discovery/selection tool from the editing and inspection siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: before other tools that need an editor session ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow hint is clear enough for an agent to understand this is the session-selection entry point.

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