List who is editing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the shape of returned rows (id,name,cursor,selection,edits) and the render-progress object (tool, seconds, phase, done, total, threads), and it points to render_photo cancel=true as the way to stop a run. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the subject ('People and agents on this project now') and wastes no words. However, the bracket/semicolon notation makes the structure somewhat hard to parse, keeping it from a 5.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values in full, and it does provide some structure. However, it does not help the agent place the tool among many siblings (history, annotations, feedback), so the context is not fully complete for selection.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as there are none to document.

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 names the resource ('People and agents on this project now') and enumerates returned fields, but does not use a clear verb and the tool name 'sessions' is vague. The title 'List who is editing' helps, but the description alone is not a crisp verb+resource statement and does not clearly differentiate from siblings like 'history' or 'annotations'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. It mentions 'render_photo cancel=true stops it' but this is about a sibling tool's parameter, not about when to call sessions instead of other tools.

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