List session transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces "Read-only." Beyond that it adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact directory, one-file-per-session granularity, deterministic oldest-first ordering, and the fact that project/date are derived from each file's frontmatter, which signals metadata can be missing or inconsistent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return shape, then the usage workflow. Every sentence carries distinct information: location, output fields, provenance, safety, and next step. No repetition of the title or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned object fields (path, project, date, filename, size_bytes) and explaining where project and date originate. For a single-optional-parameter listing tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results is missing.

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%, and the single optional `project` parameter is documented in the schema as a substring match with the meaning of omitting it. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the schema is doing the work and 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("List raw session transcripts") and pins down scope ("in raw/sessions/"), granularity (one markdown file per agent session), and ordering ("sorted by path, oldest first"). An agent can distinguish this listing tool from content-oriented siblings like wiki_search and wiki_query without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit usage path: "Use it to see which sessions exist for a project, then open one with wiki_read_page," naming the follow-up sibling directly. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g. use wiki_search instead to find sessions by content), which keeps it short of a 5.

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