herdr_session_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that sessions are persistent, survive disconnects, and support sharing/reattachment—useful behavioral traits beyond the name alone. It doesn't mention any side effects, but as a list operation, none are expected, and the disclosed behaviors are 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that states the core purpose and then adds valuable context about session characteristics. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells exactly what the tool lists and the nature of those sessions, which is enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. There is no missing information that would hinder correct usage.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage (vacuous). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description need not add parameter semantics. No gaps exist here.

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 'List herdr persistent sessions' with a specific verb and resource. The qualifier 'persistent' distinguishes this from other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., controller_list, agent_list), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool by explaining that sessions survive disconnects and can be shared/reattached locally or over SSH. This implies usage when the agent needs to interact with persistent, reattachable sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses an exclusion clause.

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