@git-fabric/aiana

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the grouping logic ('grouped by project') and sorting behavior ('sorted by most-recent activity'), but doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no sessions match the filter. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality and grouping logic, while the second explains session derivation and sorting behavior. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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-oriented tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what sessions are and how they're sorted, but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for agent decision-making.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions grouping by project which aligns with the 'project' parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the specific action ('List sessions grouped by project'), defines what sessions are ('derived from memories that share a sessionId'), and specifies the return order ('sorted by most-recent activity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aiana_memory_search or aiana_memory_recall by focusing on session-level aggregation rather than individual memory operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like aiana_memory_search (which might retrieve individual memories) or explain scenarios where listing sessions by project is preferable to other memory-related operations. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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