doubao_desktop_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — that titles and messages are private user data and should be handled accordingly — which goes beyond the schema. But it never states that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor anything about result format, ordering, or volume.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded before the data-handling caveat. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 zero-parameter list tool the description covers the action and the privacy constraint, but with no output schema the agent is never told what a returned session contains (identifiers, titles, timestamps) or what to do with the results. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering input is accepted, consistent with the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'List existing Doubao desktop conversations' — which plainly tells an agent this is an enumeration tool. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like doubao_desktop_status or doubao_desktop_read, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisite or ordering relative to doubao_desktop_status or doubao_desktop_read. The agent must guess whether this is the entry point before reading a conversation.

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