terminal_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the returned attributes (state, pid, cwd, size, idle time, buffer size), which implies a read-only introspection call, but it says nothing about scoping, pagination, or what 'active' means, and doesn't confirm the operation is non-mutating.

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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The enumerated attribute list is informative rather than padding, though the near-duplicate 'size' and 'buffer size' is slightly redundant.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned, which is the key missing piece for a listing tool. Remaining gaps are minor: what counts as 'active' and whether sessions from other workspaces are included.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. The description's field list is about return values, not inputs, so it neither helps nor hurts here.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (active sessions), and enumerates the attributes returned. It is clearly distinguishable in substance from siblings like terminal_read or terminal_screen, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as terminal_screen or terminal_read. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/overview call from the verb alone.

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