list_auth_sessions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, which already covers the safety profile. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the returned fields, the is_current semantics under API-key auth, and the account/API-key requirement. It stops short of pagination or ordering behavior, but is notably richer than the annotation.

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?

Purpose and return content are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the ACCESS block clearly separated. Slightly verbose, but every line (including the start_login warning) carries non-redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden and mostly discharges it: it names the returned fields, discloses the auth prerequisite, and clarifies is_current behavior. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether pagination applies.

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 rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 specific verb (list) and resource (active authentication sessions) scoped to the current user, and previews the returned fields (channel, user agent, expiry). It implicitly separates itself from revoke_auth_session by verb, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

It supplies useful usage context: the auth prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY) and the disambiguation that start_login does NOT open this tool, which preempts a likely agent mistake. However, it never names a sibling alternative or states when-not to use it, so the guidance is context rather than true routing.

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