List Grok sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: the local-only nature, case-insensitive substring matching, parameter interactions (id ignores others, limit ignored when id set), and the ability to resume sessions from any directory using the returned id. No contradictions.

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 concise at about 4 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It includes some repetition of the local-only constraint (appears in both the main description and the query parameter description), but overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the local store, parameter behavior, and usage of returned ids. It does not describe the output format, but this is mildly acceptable given the lack of output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the role of each parameter in a usage context, specifies that id ignores other parameters, and clarifies that limit is ignored when id is set. This provides a semantic understanding that the schema alone does not convey.

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 search), resource (Grok Build sessions), and scope (local store at $GROK_HOME/sessions). It explicitly distinguishes from remote search by noting it does not consult any remote index, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like 'grok sessions search'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter (id for single session, query for substring search, cwd for directory filtering, limit for max rows). It also states that search is local-only and not for remote queries. However, no explicit contrast with sibling tools like 'check' or 'review' is given, though the context is clear enough.

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