session_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned metadata fields, including the additional exclude_domains field, and describes the call shape and aliases. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. It provides useful output context but leaves some behavioral assumptions implicit.

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 well-structured with a clear header, resource form note, operation bullet, and canonical call shape. It uses formatting to front-load the key purpose and keeps each sentence informative. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 listing tool, the description is quite complete: it enumerates all returned fields, specifies the resource form, and explains the invocation formats. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values. However, it stops short of stating read-only behavior or error conditions, which would be needed for full completeness given the lack of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'op' is the verb ('list'), 'params' is an optional object, and 'session_id' remains top-level. It also details the canonical call shape and the flat-parameter compatibility alias, which adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with 'Session listing' and details the list() operation, clearly stating that it lists every connected Godot editor with extensive metadata. It differentiates from sibling tools like session_activate by focusing solely on listing, and includes the resource form for resource-aware clients, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys that this tool is for listing sessions and mentions a preferred resource form for resource-aware clients. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like session_activate, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The context is clear but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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