List Terminal Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion of 'lifecycle states' as content, without stating ordering, pagination, or whether inactive/terminated sessions are excluded or merely annotated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the title. It could carry one more clause of routing information within the same length budget.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations declaring safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and call it. Remaining details (pagination, ordering) are naturally carried by the output schema.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List active terminal sessions') with a clear scope qualifier ('active'), which separates it from mutating siblings like terminal_close or terminal_session_attach. It stops short of naming which sibling is the alternative for non-active/historical sessions.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are referenced despite a large sibling set (terminal_session_events, terminal_read_activity, debug_bridge_list) that could plausibly be confused with it. Usage is only implied by the word 'active'.

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