list_chute_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the status semantics (e.g., PROPOSED means assistant-built awaiting confirmation), which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior or default ordering, though these are partially implied by skip/take parameters.

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 two sentences with minimal waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and context; the second sentence explains the filter option with enum meanings. It's front-loaded and every word carries 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 moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains the status filter semantics, which is the main behavior. Missing details like pagination defaults or sort order are minor for a list operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each status enum value (PROPOSED, ACTIVE, COMPLETED), which is not in the schema. This is a baseline 3, with slight improvement from the enum clarification.

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 resource (chute-mode work sessions), adds context (chute-side capture runs: weigh days, preg checks, vaccinations), and differentiates from siblings by naming the specific session type. It fully distinguishes from list_groups, list_records, and get_chute_session without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (listing chute sessions) and explains the optional status filter with specific meanings (PROPOSED, ACTIVE, COMPLETED). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar lists, but the context is sufficient and the filter explanation is helpful.

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