list_thronglets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral caveat: live state reflects this server while sessions run by another throng instance show their recorded state. That is genuinely useful, but read-only safety, ordering, and staleness limits are not spelled out.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the field list and the cross-instance caveat. No 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the return fields (description, agent, cwd, state, queue length, timestamps, last error), which is exactly the compensation needed. Ordering and pagination behavior are the only 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 there is no parameter syntax to document; baseline 4 applies. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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?

Specific verb (lists) and resource (thronglet sessions) with the returned fields enumerated, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_harnesses and the mutating run_thronglet/cancel_thronglet tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'on this machine' scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of wait_thronglet or run_thronglet, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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