list_auth_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool lists only active sessions, scopes results to the current user, shows specific attributes, and behaves differently under API key authentication (no is_current flag). This is meaningful transparency for a read-only listing tool, though it does not discuss output shape or error conditions.

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 and front-loads the core purpose before adding caveats. The access instruction and the 'start_login does NOT open this tool' warning each add practical value, but the ACCESS block is slightly informal and could be tightened; nevertheless, no sentence is wasted.

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 simple parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool lists, what details are shown, the access requirement, and the API-key-specific behavior. It does not fully specify return formats or pagination, but for this simple listing operation the provided context is sufficient.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for parameter-free tools is 4, and the description even adds relevant context about the API key authentication mode, which is more than necessary.

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 operation ('List all active authentication sessions') and the resource ('for the current user'). It also enumerates the returned session details (channel, user agent, expiry), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from related session tools like create_session or revoke_auth_session.

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 practical context: it requires a Proof account and an API key, instructs the agent to set PROOF_API_KEY and restart the server, and explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer list_auth_sessions over get_session or revoke_auth_session, but the access prerequisite and the login-flow caveat provide solid usage guidance.

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