List Recorded Tool-Call Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: the file layout, the exact fields returned per entry, and the newest-first ordering. It stops short of noting limits like pagination or how many sessions can accumulate, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and storage location, then return fields, ordering, and routing. The trailing 'Phase: observe; cost=low; idempotency=read-only. Requires: none. Produces: ...' block is somewhat boilerplate and partially duplicates the annotations, but it is short and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so (sessionId, sessionLabel, startedAt, endedAt, call count, file size). It also covers location, ordering, and downstream usage, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters (signature {}), so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline for an empty schema is 4. The description correctly confirms the empty signature rather than leaving the agent to wonder whether filters exist.

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 ('Enumerate every recorded session') plus the exact storage location (~/.executor-mcp/sessions/<id>.jsonl), which pins down what is being listed. It also names the two sibling tools it feeds into (session-show, session-replay), so an agent can distinguish it from them immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Use the returned sessionId with session-show to read records or session-replay to plan a re-issue.' Each alternative is paired with the condition that selects it, leaving no inference required for the obvious next step.

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