codemerge_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists sessions and includes claim counts, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, pagination behavior, or ordering. It is adequate but not rich.

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 brief, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The parameter documentation is compact and directly actionable, with no 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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no required fields, and an output schema exists to define return values. The description covers the parameter semantics and core behavior well. It is only missing when-to-use guidance relative to the many codemerge siblings.

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 fully does: it lists the four allowed status values ('active', 'merging', 'done', 'abandoned') and clarifies that omitting the parameter returns all sessions. This goes beyond the schema's vague nullable string.

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 and resource: 'List merge sessions with claim counts.' This clearly identifies the operation and one key output detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like codemerge_status or codemerge_claims, so it stops 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 explains how to filter by status but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools such as codemerge_status and codemerge_claims exist, yet no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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