patina_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses output fields and a valuable behavioral nuance (reloading state can explain failed calls). It does not explicitly state read-only or auth requirements, but for a list operation the key behaviors are covered.

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, directly front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only high-value details like the state values and the reloading caveat. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 listing tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what fields are returned, and a useful operational tip. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the response contents. No gaps are apparent.

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 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% code coverage. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds meaningful context about the data returned, which is more than sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('active Unity sessions registered with the shared Patina broker') and the key fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like patina_health (health check) and patina_call (invoking actions).

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?

It provides clear context on when to consult this tool, especially the guidance to check state="reloading" before assuming Unity disconnected. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this listing is relevant.

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