knowl_fleet

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it covers live sessions on this machine, what each session is doing, and whether it can be messaged. It also clarifies the distinction between direct messaging and waiting for idle, which goes beyond the bare annotation.

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 dense but efficient: the first sentence defines what the tool returns, the second gives concrete use cases, and the third explains how to act on the results. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, though the first sentence is a long fragment.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, when to use it, and how to interpret results. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 optional inRepo parameter, including what it filters and that omitting it returns every session. The description does not mention this parameter, but with 100% schema coverage the structured data already carries the meaning.

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 clearly identifies the resource (other live agent sessions on this machine) and the information returned (working on, files editing, problem claimed, messageable). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the title and phrasing make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like knowl_state.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios: before fixing a possibly shared error, before changing hooks/config/migrations/install, or when the user asks who else is running. It also provides follow-up guidance: messageable sessions can be reached via SendMessage, while others should be raised with the user.

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