list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a non-obvious behavior: visibility is role-dependent (managed agents see only their team; external supervisors see all). Yet it doesn't mention read-only status, output details, ordering, or error behavior, which are relevant but not critical for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the role-based visibility nuance adds real value without bloating the definition.

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 tool with a straightforward purpose, the description covers what the tool does and who can see what. The lack of an output schema isn't fully compensated by the description, but for a simple list tool this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 no parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('visible sessions'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. The 'visible' qualifier and role-based scope help differentiate it from sibling tools like team_list or status, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to see sessions—and adds useful role-based context about who sees which sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any sibling alternatives, leaving some routing to inference.

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