mc_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The listing/diagnostic framing implies a harmless read, and it names the fields an agent can check, but it does not state ordering, whether inactive sessions are excluded, or the response shape for a tool with no output schema.

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 the action first and the diagnostic intent in a tight parenthetical; no filler and nothing buried.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description still conveys the resource, that it is a read listing, and what information it returns (bot status, connection info). Only the multi-session aggregation behavior and return ordering remain unspecified, a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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, which is the baseline 4 case; the schema is trivially complete and the description adds nothing that conflicts with it.

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 and resource: list all currently active MC session instances, with a parenthetical naming the diagnostic payload (bot status, connection info). An agent can tell it apart from most siblings, though the boundary with mc_status and mc_diag is never made explicit.

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 '诊断用' implies a diagnostic context, which is a hint about when to reach for it, but there is no explicit 'use when X, use mc_status/mc_diag instead for Y' guidance despite several close siblings.

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