未读/待介入的会话

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the 'unread' notion is driven by this MCP's own read cursor, mutated by piweb_get_session and piweb_mark_read, and is deliberately separate from browser localStorage markers. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious semantics an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the purpose with the category legend, then appends two caveats (cursor semantics, alternative tool). Dense but each sentence carries information; 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?

No output schema exists, but the description effectively explains what the three categories mean, which covers the return semantics for a read-only list tool. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination/ordering behavior is not described.

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 all three parameters (cwd, limit, since) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail, so the 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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (sessions needing attention) with a three-way taxonomy of the returned categories (waiting-for-input, new-since-cursor, running-unviewed). It clearly distinguishes itself from piweb_triage and, by implication, from the plain piweb_list_sessions.

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?

States the use case (sessions needing my attention) and names piweb_triage as the alternative when judging by conversation outcome. It does not explicitly state when to prefer piweb_list_sessions instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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