list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return metadata fields and the filtering capability. Although it does not explicitly state side effects or read-only nature, as a listing operation this is largely implied and adequately transparent.

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 with no filler. The purpose, return metadata, and filter option are all covered efficiently, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is quite complete. It names return metadata fields and filter capabilities, which is sufficient given no output schema. It could mention pagination or result format, but it is not critical here.

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 schema fully documents the single 'type' parameter with enum values and descriptions, so the description adds little beyond a redundant mention of filtering. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool lists all Chat conversations and Agent sessions, uses the specific verb '列出' (list) with a clear resource, and mentions returned metadata (title, time, archive status, workspace). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing rather than deletion or other operations.

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 indicates this is for listing sessions and optionally filtering by the type parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools include delete_session and group_list, making the intended use clear.

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