list_sage_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must convey behavior. 'List' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is transparent enough for a simple list. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or whether it includes all workspaces or only some, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'List'. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy or 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?

With zero parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it uses 'workspaces' while the tool name says 'sessions', which could confuse the agent. It also offers no context on potential empty returns or relationship to the other session tools, so completeness is slightly lacking.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already reflects that. Per the baseline for 0 params, there is nothing for the description to add about parameter syntax or semantics, so a score of 4 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 clearly states a specific action ('List'), the resource ('named Sage workspaces'), and the scope ('belonging to this client'). This distinguishes it from sibling session-management tools like start_sage_session or stop_sage_session, which imply different operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List'—an agent would naturally use this to see existing workspaces—but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer it over alternatives like start_sage_session. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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