talk_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains filtering behavior and app-specific differences, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or potential side effects. 'List' implies non-mutating, but it is not stated clearly.

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 compact and information-dense. It covers purpose, filtering, app-specific behavior, and what it does not do in a few sentences with no redundancy.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and behavior. Missing return format details, but the tool's purpose is clear and siblings handle other operations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cwd as exact directory filtering and clarifies Claude/Codex behavior for the app parameter. However, the 'dsh' enum value is not explained, leaving some ambiguity for that parameter value.

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 tool lists conversations from original clients, distinguishing between Claude and Codex behaviors and specifying the cwd filter. It clearly separates from sibling tools like talk_bind and talk_read by noting it does not bind or resume.

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 context on when to use (listing conversations) and what it does not do (bind or resume), but does not explicitly name alternatives like talk_bind or talk_read. The exclusion of binding/resuming is implicit guidance.

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