List sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so "Read operation" adds nothing. The description does contribute cursor-based pagination behavior, which the annotations do not cover, so partial credit above baseline.

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?

Two short sentences, capability summary front-loaded before the redundant "Read operation" tag. Minimal waste, though the trailing sentence duplicates annotation content and earns nothing.

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 10-parameter read-only list tool whose schema fully documents inputs and whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. It omits any hint about output shape (result fields, cursor location), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema (enum states, cursor semantics, page_size bounds, aliases). The description only summarizes categories of filtering generically, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 for an agent") plus the key capabilities (pagination, filtering, search). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like retrieve_session or list_queued_messages, so it stays short of 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?

Scoping the list to a specific agent implies the usage context, and mentioning optional filtering/search hints at the tool's role, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs retrieve_session or when-not guidance.

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