list_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the returned summary (task, status, duration, action count, cost), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, result ordering, or scope (all users? all time?). Adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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, zero filler: purpose and return fields first, then routing guidance. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, but the description compensates by naming the summary fields returned, and the lone parameter is documented in the schema. What remains missing is scope and ordering behavior, which is a minor gap for a simple list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented there (default all, max 50). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List all past FSB automation sessions') and enumerates the summary fields returned (task, status, duration, action count, cost). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_session_detail and get_logs, so an agent can place it among the ~60 siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('find session IDs for deeper inspection with get_session_detail') and names two related tools with their distinct roles. There is no explicit 'when not to use', but the alternative routing is clear enough that selection is unambiguous.

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