esil_list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly describes a read-only listing operation and states the returned data fields (session IDs, binary paths, creation times), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, but 'List' naturally implies no mutation.

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 one concise sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the relevant output fields. Every word adds value and there is no filler.

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 simple zero-parameter list operation, the description is largely complete: it states the resource scope and the return fields despite the lack of an output schema. It could have clarified what 'persistent' means or how the result relates to esil_init-created sessions, but these are minor gaps.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the schema coverage is complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active persistent ESIL sessions'), and specifies the output fields. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from debug_list_sessions and rzil_list_sessions by naming the ESIL session concept.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need current active persistent ESIL sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like esil_init, rzil_list_sessions, or debug_list_sessions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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