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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations (e.g., pagination, ordering). 'List' implies read-only, but this is not explicit, leaving the agent to infer.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete in stating what it does. However, it omits usage guidance and behavioral transparency (especially since no annotations exist), which are needed for an agent to confidently call it. The lack of status enumeration or return format details is acceptable given no output schema, but the overall guidance is minimal.

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 for the undocumented 'limit' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all. The schema provides default, min, and max, but the description adds no meaning about how limit affects results (e.g., pagination, ordering). The lightweight nature of the single optional parameter mitigates the gap slightly, but the description still fails to provide any semantic enrichment.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('recorded QA sessions') with an additional detail ('and their status'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_windows, start_recording, and get_frames, which concern different resources or actions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context for selection. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or why to prefer this tool over siblings. The description is purely declarative with no usage direction.

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