list-sessions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent. The description adds the scope qualifier 'for a given SSH profile' but does not explain what 'active' means or how the tool behaves with an invalid profile. This is minimal added value beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentence with the verb front-loaded and no redundant words. It communicates the essential action and scope immediately and efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the main selection and invocation needs: what it lists and for which scope. However, it omits guidance on the distinction from list-connections or the shape of the result, which would help an agent use it correctly. It is nearly complete but not fully self-contained.

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 only parameter 'profile' is fully described in the schema ('Profile name (uses default if omitted)'). The description's phrase 'for a given SSH profile' restates the parameter without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active sessions') with a scope ('for a given SSH profile'), so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list-connections, so an agent must infer the distinction between sessions and connections. The verb+resource is specific but sibling differentiation is 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-connections or open-session. The description only restates what the tool does; it does not provide context or exclusions. An agent has no explicit direction for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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