dsh_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the second sentence clarifies what information the agent should look for. However, it does not describe output format, possible side effects, or any access requirements. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but not richly transparent.

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 very concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('List DSH sessions') and then adds a practical usage note. Every word contributes value.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects—the description is mostly complete. It names the resource and explains why an agent would call it. The main gap is lack of differentiation from closely named siblings, but the core invocation context is adequately covered.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline, 0 params warrants a 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List DSH sessions.' It also states the intended use ('Inspect project and running state before submitting work'), which clarifies why the tool exists. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dsh_status or dsh_history, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear usage context: 'before submitting work.' This tells an agent when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, but the stated timing provides useful, non-ambiguous guidance.

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