list_thronglets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it defines the state enum, explains that accepts_messages=false means send_message will fail, and discloses the important caveat that live state belongs to this server while sessions from other throng instances may be stale records. It stops short of stating read-only/non-mutating nature explicitly.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb and scope come first, followed by the returned fields and the freshness caveat. The long field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema to carry it, though it reads as a run-on list.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must document return values itself, and it does so field by field, including the error field and cross-instance freshness semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this zero-param tool.

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 schema to describe and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level ambiguity exists for the agent to resolve.

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 (lists) and resource (thronglet sessions) with a clear scope qualifier ('on this machine'), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is distinct from, but 'list' versus run/cancel/send/wait is unambiguous.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the discovery/inspection call before acting on a session. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling, so guidance is only adequate.

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