goclaw_session_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), sorting, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List chat sessions') and adds a qualifying clause ('optionally filtered by agent'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation with two optional parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, read-only nature) and return format. It meets basic needs but could be more informative for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('agent_id' for filtering and 'limit' with default). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by agent', which aligns with 'agent_id', but doesn't provide additional context like filter syntax or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles most documentation.

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 action ('List chat sessions') and resource ('chat sessions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filtering ('optionally filtered by agent'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_session_preview' or 'goclaw_session_delete', which would require more precise scope definition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with similar tools (e.g., 'goclaw_session_preview' for detailed views or 'goclaw_session_delete' for removal), or specify scenarios where filtering by agent is appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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