dsh_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the two-source data merge (in-memory sessions + not-yet-opened sessions on DSH disk), notes that DSH's session/list excludes already-open sessions, and gives concrete cost figures (~1s disk probe, 10s cache) with the only_running fast path. It omits ordering/pagination and any permission requirements.

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 purpose and state list are front-loaded, then filters, then the next-step pointer. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; the cached-duration detail is slightly more than needed for selection.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, yet the description tells the agent what running sessions return (elapsed time, currently executing tool, words produced this turn) and where data originates. Sufficient to call and interpret the result; minor gaps around ordering and result limits.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including their performance tradeoffs. The description adds the state enumeration and the data-merge context useful for interpreting include_closed, but repeats the only_running guidance rather than adding new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: list sessions and their run state, with the stated purpose of managing multiple session instances. It defines the state vocabulary (running/idle/detached) so the agent knows exactly what 'run state' means, distinguishing it from siblings like dsh_status or dsh_read.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use only_running=true to see only active sessions, and use dsh_read next to see a session's output. It does not address when to prefer dsh_get/dsh_status over this tool, so it falls short of full alternative coverage.

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