List known Antigravity sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance context (IDs are recovered from locally persisted tasks rather than fetched from a live session API), but says nothing about freshness, ordering, or whether empty results mean no sessions.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded ahead of the clarifying note about the missing CLI command.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the important provenance caveat. Coverage is solid for a zero-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps around result ordering and empty-state meaning.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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+resource (list conversation IDs) and the provenance of the data ('recovered from local persisted tasks'), which an agent can distinguish from most siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from the closest siblings like antigravity_tasks or antigravity_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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs available session/conversation IDs. The note that 'agy does not advertise a session-list command' explains why the tool exists but does not state when to prefer this over antigravity_tasks, antigravity_resume, or antigravity_status.

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