list_sessions

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

No annotations or output schema are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully warns that stored listings do not prove Agentpeers reachability and that ambiguous names must not be silently chosen, but it does not state whether this is read-only, what local storage is accessed, or what a caller should do with ambiguous results.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage caveats. Every sentence adds guidance, though the final ambiguity rule is result-consumption guidance rather than tool behavior.

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 with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and key caveats but omits the return shape and how sessions are identified or disambiguated. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent that must interpret the listing.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0 params, a 4 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Discover local chats for Codex-to-Claude coordination.' It also distinguishes the tool from native same-runtime discovery, though it does not define what a 'session' or 'local chat' contains.

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?

It explicitly says same-runtime peers should use native session discovery and messaging first, which is a clear when-not condition. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like inbox or message_status, but the usage context is clear.

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