rescue_list_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the non-obvious scope that only running or recently stopped sessions are included, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what 'recently stopped' means, whether the call has side effects, or how results are ordered.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the resource and its filtering condition. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-argument listing tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the session-state filter. It could be slightly more complete by defining the recency window or noting that this is a read-only operation, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for either the schema or description to document.

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 identifies the resource as Rescue sessions and indicates a listing action via 'listája' (list), with a useful state filter: currently running or recently stopped. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like running_processes by focusing specifically on Rescue sessions, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rescue_probe, rescue_scrcpy_status, or running_processes. The state filter implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or recommendations.

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