mt_list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('displays a list') without mentioning behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states the basic purpose but lacks context about output format, behavioral constraints, or usage guidelines. For a simple read operation, this might be adequate, but it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to use it effectively, especially without annotations.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add semantic details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters.

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 'バックアップセッション一覧を表示します' (Displays a list of backup sessions) states a clear verb ('表示します' - displays) and resource ('バックアップセッション一覧' - backup session list). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'mt_list_connections', 'mt_list_content_data', or 'mt_list_pages', which all follow the same 'list' pattern for different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether backup sessions must exist), when this tool is appropriate compared to other listing tools, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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