List on-demand server sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that credentials and internal host placement are never returned, and it states the required services:read scope, which the annotations do not.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the data-exposure caveat and the required scope. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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?

With a read-only, zero-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope of the listing, what is omitted from results, and the auth requirement. It could be marginally stronger by noting there are no filter parameters or by pointing to get_temp_vm for individual sessions.

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. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input schema.

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 (List) and resource (the account's on-demand server sessions and current options), which is more than the bare name list_temp_vms conveys. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related get_temp_vm, get_temp_vm_options, or create_temp_vm siblings that share the same resource.

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: an agent can infer this is the enumerate-all-sessions call, and 'Requires services:read' narrows who may call it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to get_temp_vm for a single session or get_temp_vm_options for options only.

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