list_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope by specifying 'connected to the ChatKazi account', which adds context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the structure of the returned data, potential pagination, or any side effects. For a list operation, these details are useful but not fully essential, so some transparency is present but incomplete.

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 sentence that states the tool's purpose and scope with no redundant wording. It is efficiently structured and immediately communicates the essential action, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of expectations about the result. While 'list all sessions' conveys the core functionality, it does not specify what information is included for each session (e.g., session ID, status, creation time) or how to handle the output. Given the availability of sibling tools like get_session_status, some clarification about the relationship would improve completeness, but the description is minimally viable for this simple 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed. It adds no additional parameter semantics because there are none to describe, which is appropriate given the schema coverage is 100%.

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's function: listing all WhatsApp sessions connected to the ChatKazi account. It uses a specific verb ('list') and a distinct resource (sessions), and it is unambiguously different from sibling tools like start_session, get_session_status, or send_whatsapp_text, which focus on creating, monitoring, or using sessions rather than enumerating them.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating sessions, which is a natural fit when an agent needs an overview of active sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_session_status (which likely targets a specific session) or start_session (which initiates a new session). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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