Seats still to judge

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: false`, but the description adds useful context about the Stop-hook lifecycle and what the tool conceptually returns. It does not describe return shape or error behavior, which keeps it just short of fully transparent.

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 tight sentences that front-load the operational context and the key agent instruction. The plugin-specific phrasing is slightly opaque, but there is no obvious 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 read-only, non-open-world tool whose parameters are fully schema-documented and whose likely caller is a hook, the description gives enough to understand what it returns and why an agent usually should not call it. A bit more detail on the return shape would make it 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'this session's panels' but does not add meaning beyond the schema for `active`, `session`, or `transcript`, so the baseline 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 states the resource clearly: the seats of this session's panels that have no verdict yet. It also distinguishes the tool from the `verdict` sibling by saying verdicts are sent there, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return'.

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?

It explicitly explains the usage context: it is called by the Benchwarmers plugin's Stop hook at the end of a turn. It also gives explicit when-not guidance ('You do not need to call it') and names the alternative tool for sending verdicts (`verdict`).

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