list_sessions

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/no-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the result ordering (newest first) and the fact that each session carries take and keeper counts, which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no redundant clauses. Every element (project scope, ordering, returned counts) earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and payload contents adequately. It omits pagination/limit behavior and filtering options, which are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single parameter (including the pointer to list_projects), the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the project argument, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List sessions") plus scoping ("in a project"), ordering ("newest first"), and returned aggregates ("take and keeper counts"). This cleanly separates it from get_session (single) and list_projects (different resource), though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_session or list_projects, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb and the project-scoped schema.

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