session_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'list' and lists the exact metadata fields returned. It also discloses the server-global 'exclude_domains' behavior, adding context beyond a simple list call. It stops short of explicitly stating 'no side effects', but the listing semantics are clear.

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 organized with a short opening, a resource form note, a bulleted op section, and a protocol note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is minor redundancy ('Session listing' vs. 'List every connected Godot editor'), but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (only a 'list' op) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It details the response metadata and server-level 'exclude_domains' information, and it explains the calling convention. It could be more explicit about whether session_id is relevant for list(), but overall it covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the canonical call shape ('{"op": "<verb>", "params": {...}}') and clarifies that flat op parameters are accepted as an alias, while 'op' and 'session_id' remain top-level. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema by describing how parameters are structured and transmitted.

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 opens with 'Session listing' and then explicitly states 'List every connected Godot editor with metadata', giving a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes this session listing tool from siblings like session_activate by focusing solely on the list operation, which the input schema enforces via the 'list' const.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list all connected editors. It also offers an explicit usage preference: 'Resource form: godot://sessions — prefer for resource-aware clients.' While it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear and the single allowed operation makes usage unambiguous.

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