list_responsive_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine lifecycle semantics beyond them — sessions persist their state across calls and vanish when the server is stopped. It also previews the returned fields, which is more than the annotations provide. It does not mention ordering or size limits, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the payload/lifecycle details. Dense but every clause carries information; only the field list is slightly list-heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the fields returned, and it explains persistence for a stateful session tool. It omits ordering, pagination/limits, and what an empty list means, so it is complete but not exhaustive for a zero-param read tool.

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, so the baseline is 4; however, the description's field enumeration ('sessionIds, screenIds, tamaños, URLs actuales, enlace al panel') is really about return values rather than parameters. With no parameters to disambiguate and no output schema, this is adequate but adds nothing parameter-specific, landing at 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista las comparaciones responsive abiertas') and enumerates what each entry contains (sessionIds, screenIds, tamaños, URLs, enlace al panel). It is clearly distinguishable in kind from the session-manipulating siblings, but it never names a sibling (e.g. observe_responsive_session) to route the agent, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The only contextual cue is the scoping phrase 'abiertas en este proceso MCP', which implies the tool is for surveying the current process's sessions but does not tell an agent when to prefer it over observe_responsive_session or check_responsive.

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