List Terminal Sessions

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

The annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds valuable extra behavior: it enumerates the returned fields, lists shell types, and clarifies that a process is marked alive or false if exited or killed. No contradiction with annotations exists, and no hidden mutation is implied.

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 three front-loaded sentences: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter list tool, and the description fully accounts for the missing output schema by enumerating the return fields. Combined with the annotations and the explicit usage guidance, nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 has zero parameters and the schema already represents this with an empty properties object. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline score of 4 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 uses a specific action ('Lists') and a clearly bounded resource ('every session this server currently knows about'). It also explains the real backing shell process and distinguishes this inspection tool from the mutation/communication siblings like write_to_terminal and read_terminal_output.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: before write_to_terminal/read_terminal_output when session names are uncertain, and to check whether an exited session must be reopened. This gives the agent a concrete decision rule and names the related tools it supports.

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