list_active_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds two useful facts beyond them: 'No API call' (no rate limit, no network side effects) and that flowCredentials is 'weak auth scoped to ONE questionnaire'. It does not discuss caching or freshness of the listed credentials, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two-way split. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical capability lists make it slightly heavy for a no-argument discovery tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the two return keys (portalSessions, flowCredentials) and what each represents, so an agent knows the response shape and how to interpret it. Combined with the safety annotations, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it does not attempt to.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus precise resource ('HoneyBook credentials currently active in this MCP'), further decomposed into the two returned keys. An agent can distinguish this from get_workspace, use_magic_link, and the other siblings without opening any schema.

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 explains what each credential kind grants access to and warns 'The two are not interchangeable', which is real guidance for choosing a credential. It falls short of explicitly stating when to call this tool versus a sibling (e.g., as a precondition check before use_magic_link), so it is context-rich but not full when/when-not routing.

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