terminal_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the returned status fields and string format, but it does not disclose edge cases such as empty terminal lists or potential error conditions.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful return-value line without any filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the scope and return shape well, especially with annotations and an output schema present. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly mentioning that it only lists existing sessions and does not modify them, but that is already implied by the annotations.

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 no actual user-facing parameters; the only required field is the 'params' wrapper containing an empty object. The schema fully defines this envelope, so the description does not need to add parameter-level guidance.

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 states that the tool returns a list of currently open terminal sessions with status, and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, target, alive, idle time, age). This clearly identifies the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling terminal tools.

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 phrase 'currently open terminal sessions' implies the tool is for enumerating open terminal sessions, but the description does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools, nor any exclusions. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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