flightlog_list_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output fields (time, project, branch, first message preview) but omits other behavioral traits like default ordering (likely descending by time), pagination behavior (default limit 25), or whether the operation is read-only. 'Browse' hints at no side effects, but not explicit.

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: the first explains what the tool shows, the second gives usage advice. No redundant words or details. Front-loaded with key purpose.

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 list tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent can expect (fields in each session). It does not mention ordering, total count, or empty results, but these are common defaults. Still, a bit more detail on sort order would improve completeness.

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 is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming that date filters and project/git branch filters correspond to shown fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists past Claude Code conversation sessions with key details (time, project, branch, first message preview). It distinguishes from siblings like flightlog_get_session (single session) and flightlog_search (search) by focusing on browsing, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 says 'Use to find a specific past conversation,' implying a browse scenario. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over flightlog_search (which likely offers more targeted search) or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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