sage_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it declares read-only and self-only, enumerates the returned fields (session_id, transport kind, provider/project, current flag, unfinished claim count), disclaims authorization semantics ('grants, claims, or transfers nothing'), and bounds visibility to SAGE_HOME claimant identities.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the field list follows. Five sentences is on the long side, but each clause carries distinct disambiguation value (handover use, returned fields, non-authorization, visibility boundary) rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return payload itself, and it does by naming each returned field. Combined with the security and visibility caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description still usefully characterizes the output payload, which is the only 'input-adjacent' semantic available.

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) plus a precise resource and scope: 'this agent's own live MCP claimant sessions on this SAGE node.' The read-only/self-only qualifiers immediately separate it from node-wide siblings such as sage_status or sage_node_health.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: use it when an operator or peer needs the exact runtime session name for a handover. It also implies exclusions ('not cross-node presence or delivery evidence'), but it never names a sibling tool to use instead, so routing is clear but not fully closed.

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