List Raw Sessions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds behavioral context by describing grouping, computed fields (first/last epoch, message count), and sampling of role=user messages, which goes beyond the schema and annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for a read-only list endpoint, this is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the action, specify the output fields, and provide a use case. No filler; every sentence adds value.

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 has rich annotations, full schema descriptions, and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and output format (matching a CLI command), making it complete for a read-only list tool.

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%, with each parameter fully documented. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sessions with raw archive messages within a time window, specifying the grouping key (source_root, project, session_id) and included fields. The verb 'list' and specific resource make it distinct from sibling tools like search_raw or timeline.

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 states a use case: 'Use for recap-style summaries of what happened in a period.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it's not fully differentiating.

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