sessions_read_unverifiable

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not touch the attribution cache or ledger, adding meaningful side-effect guarantees. It also precisely defines the inclusion and exclusion criteria for listed sessions, giving the agent a full model of observable 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 longer than minimal but each section adds value: purpose, use scenario, return shape, exclusion semantics, and side effects. The internal 'PR4' reference adds a small jargon cost but is immediately followed by a plain-language explanation.

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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool, the description is complete: it states the output schema, the precise filtering rule, the operational scenarios, and the absence of side effects. No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the responsibility of documenting the return shape.

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 of 4 applies. The description still clarifies the only relevant input context by describing the session universe that the tool operates over.

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 first sentence states a precise action and resource: enumerate orchestrator sessions whose attestation sidecar exists but no longer verifies. This clearly differentiates it from generic session-read or attestation tools by focusing on the unverifiable subset.

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 gives concrete trigger contexts: keyring compromise, key rotation invalidating signatures, or tampered sidecars, making it clear when an operator would need this tool. It also explains what is excluded from results, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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