jp_lit_list_sessions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'read-only' and explicitly states 'session や cache は変更しない' (does not change session or cache). It adds context about sorting and filtering behaviors, which complements the 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?

The description is three sentences: first states read-only and core functionality, second gives use case, third provides alternative. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the critical 'read-only' label. No redundancy.

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 that the tool has an output schema (true) and 10 parameters all documented, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and safety. It does not explain pagination or sorting details further, but the schema already handles that. It is complete enough for a listing tool with good annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by trace, selected, source, date range, which maps to parameters, but does not add additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. No extra value added.

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 clearly states the tool lists past research sessions with sorting and filtering options. It uses specific verbs like '一覧し' (list) and '絞り込む' (filter), and distinguishes itself from jp_lit_find_sessions by noting the different use case (specific term search).

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool (inventory and resume candidates when search terms are forgotten) and when not to (for specific terms, use jp_lit_find_sessions). It names the sibling tool directly, providing clear alternative.

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