List Kiro sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: local sessions outside KIRO_MCP_ROOTS are silently omitted and only counted, and filtering happens server-side with a report of how many entries were left out. Those are exactly the surprises an agent needs warned about, though return shape/pagination is not discussed (the output schema covers the former).

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the scope definition is front-loaded where it matters most. But the final clause ('Filters by source..., title substring, and limit run on this server and report how many were left out') is grammatically tangled and forces the reader to parse it twice to recover which parameters are filters versus which report omissions.

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 five-parameter, zero-required listing tool with an output schema present, this covers the essentials: scope semantics, source semantics, the KIRO_MCP_ROOTS exclusion rule, and server-side truncation reporting. The remaining gap is `limit` behavior and the relationship to sibling listing tools, both minor given the output schema carries return details.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the highest-ambiguity parameters: `scope` values are defined operationally (workspace = sessions whose cwd is `cwd`, user = every workspace) and `source` is glossed as local versus remote cloud sessions, plus `title_contains` as a substring match. The exception is `limit`, which is mentioned only in passing ('and limit run on this server') without clarifying whether it truncates results or how truncation is signaled.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List saved Kiro sessions') and immediately names the underlying operation (session/list). It distinguishes itself from the many mutating siblings (kiro_session_new, kiro_session_delete) implicitly by being a listing operation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby read siblings kiro_session_history or kiro_session_state.

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?

Usage context is implied through the scope options: an agent learns to pick `workspace` for a single cwd or `user` to sweep every workspace. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over kiro_session_history or kiro_session_state, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions beyond the KIRO_MCP_ROOTS note.

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