jp_lit_list_sessions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'session や cache は変更しない' (does not modify session or cache), which names the specific resources that are unaffected and reinforces the read-only contract in a way that matters to an agent tracking side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences with no filler: read-only status and core function are front-loaded, followed by use cases, alternative tool routing, and a safety note. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information, and the description is appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 description, combined with full schema coverage and an output schema, fully equips an agent to call this tool correctly. It covers purpose, filters, sort behavior, use case, alternative routing, and side-effect guarantees, leaving no critical gap for a listing operation.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description adds a high-level functional grouping: it maps the listed filters (trace presence, selected-candidate presence, source, date range) to the specific parameter categories, and the ordering phrase ('新しい順または作成日順') clarifies the sort_by/sort_order semantics. This helps an agent select relevant parameters without reading every schema entry.

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 states a specific verb ('一覧し' = list), a clear resource ('過去の調査セッション' = past research sessions), and the key scoping dimensions (ordering, trace/selected presence, source, date range). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'jp_lit_find_sessions' by noting the alternative is for searching by specific terms, so an agent can select this tool confidently.

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 explicit use cases: inventorying research history when search terms are not remembered, and finding candidates to resume. It also names the alternative tool 'jp_lit_find_sessions' and states the condition for choosing that instead ('特定語で探す場合は'), offering clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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