list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a non-destructive read by saying it lists 'currently registered' sessions and it discloses the returned fields, but it says nothing about whether the call is side-effect free, what authorization or session scope applies, whether results are paginated, or whether 'real-time' means the data is live or cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The field list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back; 'Context Firewall token savings' is the only slightly jargon-heavy framing.

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?

With only 2 well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job by enumerating returned fields. But for a tool whose primary ambiguity is list_sessions vs list_agents vs get_task_status, and with no annotations to lean on, leaving out both the sibling distinction and the read-only assurance is a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100% — the enum values for filter and the parent_session_id purpose are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that (it never mentions filtering, 'my_children', or how parent_session_id interacts with the filter), so the baseline of 3 applies. Saying 'List all' arguably understates the available filtering.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (agent sessions) and an enumeration of the fields returned: roles, models, cost tiers, statuses, token savings. That gives an agent a clear picture of the payload. It stops short of distinguishing this from the sibling list_agents, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which inventory tool to call.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_agents, get_task_status, or check_inbox, and no mention of the filter modes that scope it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the schema.

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