sessions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'List sessions' implies a read operation but doesn't explicitly state it, and there is no mention of pagination, rate limits, authentication, or data scoping beyond the filter hint.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the action and provide a practical tip. There is zero filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It does not define what a 'session' is, how results are ordered, or how this tool relates to the many sibling tools. The output schema exists, but the contextual role is under-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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaningful context for type_filter ('group for group-chat workflows') but leaves limit, offset, and keyword entirely unexplained beyond their schema names and defaults.

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 'List sessions' states a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. The added phrase 'use type_filter=group for group-chat workflows' gives a targeted use case, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools beyond the resource type.

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 hint to use type_filter=group for group-chat workflows provides a conditional usage guide. However, it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like timeline or resolve_chat, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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