sessions_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two useful traits: these logs are auto-created by serial_open and are ordered newest→oldest. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any note on whether listing is cheap or scoped, so behavioral context is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Efficient, though not maximally information-dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple list operation. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented limit parameter, the description leaves an agent guessing about pagination semantics.

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 0% and the sole parameter (limit) is not mentioned at all in the description. The description fails to tell the agent what limit controls or its default/ceiling, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (persisted serial session logs) and adds distinguishing detail: auto-created at serial_open, ordered newest→oldest. It does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling sessions_get, but the scope is otherwise clear.

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 second sentence implies usage ('even after the session is closed, or many turns later, still usable to recover the prior serial scene'), which gives a clear situational trigger. However, it never names when to pick this over sessions_get or serial_session_log, leaving the alternative to inference.

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