list_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'active' sessions, implying a filter on state. However, it does not describe whether this fetches from a remote service, or whether the list is mutable (e.g., could drop sessions). The brief description leaves some behavioral ambiguity but is not misleading.

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, complete sentence of six words. Every word contributes meaning. No wasted characters. Perfect front-loading.

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, no-output-schema tool with simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of session IDs) but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. The simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaning by specifying 'active' and 'Metasploit', which provides context beyond the empty parameter schema. Since there is nothing to document in parameters, the description does its job adequately.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all active Metasploit sessions'. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'run_exploit', 'connect_metasploit', or 'search_exploits', which have different purposes. The description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but from context it is implied that this is for viewing active sessions after connecting or exploiting, a common Metasploit workflow step. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must have an active msfconsole connection) is provided, but the purpose is straightforward enough.

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