list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists sessions and their forks, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly declare the lack of side effects, authentication requirements, or any potential pagination. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded, and the content is directly informative. It achieves maximum clarity with minimal words.

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 no parameters and a defined output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to call it correctly. It names the core output fields, which is sufficient. Adding explicit read-only language or ordering/filtering notes would be a minor improvement but not necessary.

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, so the description needs to add no parameter-specific semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without needing any parameter explanation.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('superpose sessions and their forks'), and the exact fields returned ('status, timing, cost'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling tools, which likely focus on executing actions rather than reviewing existing 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?

The phrase 'for review' provides clear context that this tool is meant for inspecting or auditing sessions, which implies it should be used when the agent needs an overview rather than taking an action. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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