Активные подключения

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description says the tool 'allows to notice an extra connection and revoke it', implying a state-changing capability. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so the description fails to align with the tool's actual behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the final sentence about revoking is not only unnecessary but misleading. While it is concise in length, the inclusion of an inaccurate capability detracts from the structure and focus.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description partially covers return values (device, address, duration) but omits important context such as the fact that revocation is handled by a separate tool (sessions_revoke). The misleading 'revoke' clause makes the description incomplete and potentially confusing for an agent.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema covers the absence of parameters completely. No additional value is required.

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 that the tool lists all active sessions of the account, including browsers and MCP clients, and shows device, address, and duration. However, the final clause 'allows to notice an extra connection and revoke it' conflates this tool with a revocation action, slightly muddying the core purpose.

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 implies viewing sessions for security but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sessions_revoke, which is the actual revocation tool. The claim that this tool allows revoking is misleading and provides poor guidance for when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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