List retained QA sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further with non-obvious behavior the schema cannot express: reading does not extend TTL, expired/evicted sessions are unrecoverable, sorting is expires_at desc then run_id desc, empty result means nothing retained, and post-restart only unfinished local-storage sessions reappear.

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 opening sentence states purpose, the second sentence front-loads the primary use case and alternatives, and four tight bullets carry only non-redundant behavioral facts (TTL, sort, restart, empty semantics). No sentence is filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return-field documentation is not required), the description still supplies everything an agent needs that the structured fields do not: empty-result interpretation, sort order, TTL non-extension, and restart scoping. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms "Takes no arguments," which is the only parameter-level fact available and is already fully specified by the schema, so it cannot exceed the baseline.

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 and resource ("List non-expired QA session identifiers and brief metadata") and immediately distinguishes itself from get_qa_orchestration, which returns "full state" rather than a list. An agent can tell from the description alone which of the siblings to call for a lookup versus a state read.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ("Recover a lost run_id by matching task type, route, and stage; confirm if several match") and routes to the correct alternatives by name for other needs (get_qa_orchestration for full state, get_qa_orchestration_model_policy for server policy). It also states a when-not: expired or evicted sessions are unrecoverable.

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