List annotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing and mentions that marks and notes are returned verbatim, but it omits pagination, ordering, permission requirements, and whether the optional status argument filters the list or just describes returned status values.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence about verbatim marks and notes is useful. There is little wasted text, though the description could be slightly more explicit about the listing behavior without becoming long.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. However, it leaves out how status filtering works and whether there are pagination or ordering constraints, which are relevant for an agent invoking a list endpoint.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single optional status parameter is only documented by its enum values. The description does not explain that status filters sessions, what 'all' means relative to the other enum values, or whether omitting the parameter is equivalent to 'all'. It therefore fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing annotation sessions and their status. It also adds that marks and notes are returned verbatim, which clarifies the result content. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling annotations_get, but the basic purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus annotations_get, annotations_resolve, or annotate_start. The description implies a listing operation but does not state whether it lists all sessions by default, how the status argument should be used, or when another sibling is more appropriate.

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