List shared sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral fact the annotations don't carry: results are silently filtered to the current repo unless all_repos is set. That default-scoping disclosure is the kind of context an agent needs to avoid missing data.

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?

Three short sentences, no repetition. The core purpose and the important default-scope caveat come first, with the for_me exception last. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 read-only, fully documented list tool with annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: scope default, escaping the default, and the for_me exception. It could still say what ordering/pagination look like or point to search_sessions for filtered lookups, but nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all seven parameters and their defaults; baseline is 3. The one genuine addition is that for_me pulls handoffs 'from any repo', clarifying how that flag interacts with the default repo scope — but the remaining parameters get no extra description-level meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List sessions teammates have shared.' The shared/teammate framing and repo scoping help separate it from generic listing siblings, but it never names search_sessions or get_session, so the boundary with those siblings is left implicit.

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?

It gives concrete scoping rules (default current repo, all_repos for everything, for_me for handoffs), which is useful context, but it never states when to prefer this over search_sessions or get_session. The agent must infer the alternative from the sibling name alone.

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