dsh_list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly notes that this tool does not start a model turn and returns only compact metadata, which implies a non-mutating, low-cost operation. It does not state authentication requirements or one-off side effects beyond 'no model turn,' but it gives a better-than-minimal behavioral picture.

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 compact and front-loaded. Four short sentences each add new info: purpose/no-side-effect, output metadata, filtering/pagination, and usage preference. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, return fields, and pagination, which is good. Gaps remain around the 'include_archived' parameter and the precise meaning of 'limit' within the paging scheme, so an agent could still certify accurately interpret the tool's full behavior.

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?

With 0% parameter description coverage in the schema, the description is relied on for all parameter meaning. It provides real semantics for 'cwd' ('exact absolute cwd') and mentions pagination with 'offset,' but it says nothing about 'include_archived' or the meaning of 'limit' as a page size. Important params are left unexplained, creating ambiguity about what will be returned and how archived sessions are handled.

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 ('Find') and resource ('existing DSH Web sessions') and clarifies that it does not start a new session turn. It also lists the returned metadata fields, which distinguishes it from creator/interactive tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling dsh_search_sessions, so the same overlap is left for the agent to infer.

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 guidance: 'Prefer reusing the right existing session over creating duplicates,' which tells the agent when to use this tool instead of creating a new session. It also signals the non-interactive nature with 'without starting a model turn.' It lacks explicit alternatives and when-not-to-use exclusions relative to the sibling search tool, but the context is clear enough.

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