List Sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only that status is 'up-to-date' (implying live/refreshed values); it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether results paginate, or how large the listing can be.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Nothing needs trimming and nothing important is buried.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a read tool with zero annotations the description is thin: it omits confirmation that this is side-effect-free and gives no hint about result volume or ordering, leaving an agent with gaps beyond the structured fields.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing further for the description to disambiguate about inputs, so this dimension is effectively satisfied by the empty schema.

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 (Lists) and resource (sessions) plus the scope 'all registered', which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-target get_session. It does not explicitly name that sibling or contrast with list_jobs/list_devices, so differentiation is only inferred.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_session (single session) or the job-listing siblings. Usage can only be inferred from the word 'Lists' and 'all'; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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