list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'live' sessions but does not explain the effect of include_stale, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavior is partially inferred from the parameter name but not explicitly disclosed.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it is slightly too minimal, missing parameter details that could be included without excessive length.

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?

While an output schema exists to describe return values, the description does not explain how to use the two input parameters (project filtering, include_stale for stale sessions). For a simple list tool, this omission leaves agents uncertain about optional filters.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (project, include_stale) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, offering no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action ('list'), the resource ('live Claude sessions'), and the information provided ('who is working, on what, where'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_session or heartbeat that 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 description implies usage for viewing live sessions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_channel or poll_inbox. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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