list_recovery_sessions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds meaningful behavioral context such as the 90-day maximum range, the need for sequential calls to cover longer periods, and the 'INFER — do not ask' directive, which helps the agent behave correctly. It does not explicitly mention output format or error behavior, but with an output schema present that is less critical.

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 lengthy but well-organized: it starts with the primary purpose, then contrasts with a sibling, and finally gives usage and inference rules. While it could be trimmed, the added detail on multi-call traversal and inference rules is necessary for correct usage, so the structure is appropriate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple optional parameters, inference rules, range limitations, and a sibling that is easily confused), the description covers all necessary context: it identifies when to use it, how to handle date ranges, how to distinguish from list_recovery_strategies, and how to handle long histories. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, and the description enriches them further: it explains default values for start_date/end_date, that omitting category returns all categories, and the limit's default/maximum. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent full understanding of each parameter's meaning and usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'logged recovery sessions', and the scope 'within a date range, each with its ID'. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool list_recovery_strategies to remove ambiguity, so an agent immediately knows what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios ('answer what recovery sessions have I logged', audit/spot-check, get an id after ambiguous match) and gives concrete inference rules for parameters (default date range, category omission). It also tells the agent when to make multiple calls for longer histories, making the usage guidance highly actionable.

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