list_sessions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by enumerating the returned attributes (server, project, phase, status, current marker), which partially substitutes for the missing output schema, but it never states that the call is read-only, what it returns when the agent has joined no sessions, or how 'current' is determined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing field list is slightly telegraphic but every element maps to a returned attribute, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it gives a partial field inventory plus the 'current' marker. For a simple read tool that is close to adequate, but the meaning of ambiguous fields like 'phase' and 'status' is left undefined.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 the resource (sessions) and the scope constraint (the sessions the agent is in), which separates it from the sibling list_projects and list_servers. It is clear what is returned but does not explicitly say 'list', and the relationship to session_info is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the scope phrase alone that this is the overview call, while session_info is the per-session detail call; nothing in the text routes between them.

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