List Sessions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful scoping context beyond annotations ('local' scope, 'summaries' instead of full sessions), but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or what a summary contains. This is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words: verb first, then scope qualifier, then resource. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema already documents most parameter semantics.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and strong schema param coverage, the description need not explain return values or side-effect risk. However, the lack of sibling differentiation is a real gap: an agent cannot tell when to choose this over sessions_search, sessions_get, or sessions_export without inspecting those tools as well.

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 75%: baseUrl, profile, and frontendUrl all have detailed descriptions with fallback chains, so the schema carries most of the parameter burden. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, and the single undocumented parameter (limit) is largely self-evident from its type and default of 20. This lands at the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and a specific resource ('local Cloudeval CLI session history summaries'). The 'local' and 'summaries' qualifiers help distinguish it from siblings like sessions_search, sessions_get, and sessions_export, but it stops short of explicitly contrasting with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its session-related siblings (sessions_search, sessions_get, sessions_export). There are no exclusions, context cues, or alternative recommendations, so an agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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