dsh_list_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a safe read, and it discloses that a 'whether a turn runs' state flag is returned, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, permissions, or scope of the listing beyond 'the running app'. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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 sentence, properly front-loaded with the action and resource, with the returned fields attached as a compact list. There is no filler, hedging, or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns and it does via the field enumeration. Given zero parameters and low complexity this is close to complete; it only lacks details like result ordering or which sessions are in scope when multiple apps run.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by naming the fields in each returned entry (id, title, agent preset, working directory, turn state) rather than leaving the result shape opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Sessions of the running DeepSeek Harness app') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from siblings like dsh_open_session and dsh_read. It does not explicitly name how it differs from the other read-like siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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 is only implied: listing sessions is naturally the discovery step before dsh_open_session, dsh_send, or dsh_read, but the description never says when to call this versus those tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or ordering guidance are given.

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