memory_list_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List all' implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is safe or if any system state changes. It also does not mention potential performance implications or pagination; the description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two short sentences convey the full purpose and output fields without any redundancy or filler. The information is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. It names the key data present in a session. It could briefly explain what an 'active session' means, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 takes zero parameters, and the description correctly states 'all' sessions, implying no filtering is needed. Since the schema is empty, there is nothing to explain, so the description adds appropriate clarity relative to the 0-parameter design.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all active memory analysis sessions' and further specifies the output fields (session IDs, image paths, engine status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like memory_analyze_image or memory_full_triage, which perform different actions.

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 phrase 'List all active' establishes a clear use case: retrieving an overview of current sessions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of being a listing tool among more analytical siblings implies when it is appropriate. No exclusions are stated.

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