multi_browserbase_stagehand_session_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses behavioral traits: it's a read-only tool (implied by 'track' and 'shows'), essential for monitoring and debugging, and critical for multi-session management. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, though these might be less relevant for a list tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a critical warning and key purpose. Each sentence adds value, such as listing session details and specifying use cases, though it could be slightly more streamlined by reducing exclamation points and repetitive emphasis.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-session management), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's role, when to use it, and what information it provides. However, it doesn't detail the output format or potential errors, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on usage and context without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools that avoid unnecessary information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('track', 'shows') and resources ('all active browser sessions'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools by emphasizing it's for multi-session management and listing session details like IDs, names, ages, and Browserbase session IDs. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: it states 'ONLY WORKS WITH MULTI-SESSION TOOLS!' and specifies when to use it ('frequently to monitor parallel automation workflows', 'verify sessions are running', 'get session IDs for session-specific tools'), with clear context for debugging and resource management in multi-browser scenarios, distinguishing it from single-session tools.

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