analysis_list_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the optional status filter but does not disclose additional behavior like pagination, ordering, or default status filter when not provided. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and the optional filter. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes meaning.

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's low complexity, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists. Slight room for improvement would be mentioning default behavior with no filter, but overall it is complete for its context.

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 coverage for the single 'status' parameter is 0%, with no enum values defined. The description compensates by explicitly naming the valid statuses ('ready, closed, failed'), which gives the agent meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare string type and default empty value.

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 action ('List all analysis sessions') and the resource ('analysis sessions'), with a specific scope ('all') and an optional filter by status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis_list_frames and analysis_get_frame, which target different resources or granularity.

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 implies this tool is for listing analysis sessions, optionally filtering by status, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclusions. The context signal of sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks direct when/when-not guidance.

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