List Sessions

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful behavioral detail: returned fields, conditional IP inclusion based on trackIp, and client-side IP filtering. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists the returned fields and the IP caveat. Every clause adds useful 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?

Given the large input schema and the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the main return fields. It does not describe the exact response envelope or ordering, but the schema carries the parameter details, so the definition is reasonably complete for a list operation.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond summarizing that filtering and pagination are supported, so the baseline score of 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List sessions for a site', and adds concrete scope ('filtering and pagination') plus the exact data set returned. This clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like rybbit_get_session and from session-scoped tools like rybbit_get_funnel_step_sessions or rybbit_get_goal_sessions.

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 gives clear context: this is the general session-listing tool for a site, with filtering, pagination, and IP filtering. It does not list exclusionary alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over the many get_* siblings.

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