show_sessions_app

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions the return format ('ToolResult with PrefabApp card and plain-text fallback') and implies read-only behavior via 'Show' and 'Lists,' but does not explicitly state read-only status, permissions, or edge-case behavior. This is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear alternative and return format. It includes only necessary information with no redundancy, achieving high impact in few words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return format, and an alternative, but omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter. Since there is no output schema, the return format mention is helpful, but the missing parameter semantics leave the description incomplete for full agent decision-making.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'limit,' with zero description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving its purpose, constraints, and optionality entirely up to inference from the name and default value. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 states 'Show opencode sessions as a rich Prefab card' and 'Lists recent opencode sessions,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool opencode_sessions by directing users to that tool for raw data, eliminating ambiguity.

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 names an alternative: 'Use opencode_sessions(action="list") for raw data instead,' which helps an agent decide between presentation and raw data access. However, it does not provide broader guidance for when to use this vs other session-related siblings like opencode_list_sessions, so it's not a full when/when-not set.

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