List sessions in a Harness workspace

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the tool deliberately avoids reading conversation content, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary not present in annotations. No contradiction found.

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?

A single tightly worded sentence front-loaded with the action verb. Every phrase earns its place: reusable, native, registered, and without reading conversation content each add a distinct qualifier with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The minor gaps are the absence of ordering or pagination notes and no explicit alternative routing, but these are mitigated by the output schema and the simplicity of the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning beyond the bare string schema by specifying that the workspace parameter must reference a 'registered Harness workspace,' but it doesn't explain how to obtain or format the identifier. The compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb (List), a precise resource (reusable native sessions), a scope (one registered Harness workspace), and a meaningful constraint (without reading conversation content). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that list services, workspaces, runs, or capabilities.

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 'one registered Harness workspace' qualifier implies the precondition that the workspace must already be registered, and the 'without reading conversation content' phrasing hints at a non-content-oriented use case. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are named, so routing relies on inference from resource names.

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