Active RD Sessions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying it lists 'active' sessions (implying real-time or current state) and includes troubleshooting use cases, which enhances understanding beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and details, the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 no parameters, rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. A minor gap is the lack of detail on output format or pagination, but this is acceptable given the annotations and 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear context.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active remote desktop sessions across the RAS farm'), including detailed attributes like username, client IP, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on active sessions rather than configuration, infrastructure, or other aspects.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios: 'monitor active users, check session counts, troubleshoot user connectivity, or identify idle/disconnected sessions.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools, the context is well-defined.

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