list_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('sessions you've participated in'), explains the semantic distinction between 'terminated' and 'completed' statuses, and adds the limit maximum of 100 not present in the schema. It implies basic listing behavior by pointing to session_context for details but does not fully describe return format or pagination.

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 well-organized with clear sections for purpose, triggers, and parameters, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary because the trigger list contributes to usage guidance more than purpose, but each section earns its place with useful content. Minor redundancy in the first two sentences is acceptable as it clarifies scope.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, when to call it, how to filter, and where to get further detail. It doesn't explicitly state the response shape or whether session IDs are returned, but the pointer to session_context implies that. Given the tool's low complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does. It explains the allowed status values and their meanings, and clarifies the limit parameter's maximum, which the schema omits. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the effect of a null status, though the default null implies no 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List collaboration sessions') and narrows scope with 'Browse sessions you've participated in.' The automatic triggers further clarify the tool's purpose, and the scope helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_sessions or get_agent_sessions even without naming them.

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?

Provides an explicit 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section listing three clear scenarios for calling this tool, and directs agents to session_context for session details, which is an explicit alternative. However, it does not say when *not* to use this tool or mention alternatives like search_sessions for broader searching, so it falls short of a full 5.

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