list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation, and it discloses an auto-detect behavior that scans recently-played gaps. However, it does not state side effects, output format, pagination, or what distinguishes auto-detect from tag-filtered listing. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The auto-detect clause is concise but somewhat cryptic; it earns its place as additional capability, though it could be clearer. Overall, it is well-sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the response contains, but it doesn't. It also fails to define 'listening sessions', explain how auto-detect mode is activated, or describe how the tag filter and auto-detect interact. For a simple two-parameter tool this is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke it and interpret results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'tag' and 'response_format' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the notion that tag filtering is optional and mentions auto-detect mode, which likely relates to omitting the tag, but it doesn't explicitly connect the mode to the parameters. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'tagged listening sessions', with an optional tag filter. It differentiates from nearby session tools like describe_listening_session or session_stats by focusing on listing sessions, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The 'auto-detect mode' adds some ambiguity but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 gives reasonable context: use this to list tagged listening sessions and optionally filter by tag. The auto-detect mode's role is mentioned but not explained—when should it be used, and what does 'recently-played gaps' mean? No explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate versus related session tools.

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