list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a requirement ('Requires Memory plan'), which adds some context about access needs. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'recent' means in terms of time frame, leaving significant gaps for a tool that lists data.

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 very concise with two short sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes, but overall it's efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., format of listed sessions), behavioral aspects like sorting or pagination, and deeper context on the 'Memory plan' requirement. For a tool with three parameters and no structured support, more descriptive detail is needed to fully guide 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three optional parameters (tool, project, limit). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining filter logic or default behaviors. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recent captured session memories'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'capture_session' (which creates) and 'recall_memory' (which retrieves specific memories). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_topics' or 'search_knowledge', which might also list items, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires Memory plan'), which provides some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_topics' or 'search_knowledge', nor does it specify exclusions or detailed usage scenarios beyond the plan requirement.

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