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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the results are EXZA-owned only, deliberately omit command lines and output, and require account-bound computer:write OAuth plus possible local owner approval. That auth requirement is genuinely useful and slightly counterintuitive for a read-only tool, which is exactly the kind of thing worth disclosing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with scope and the sibling comparison before prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information: what it returns, what it is not, and what it requires.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers result content (IDs and statuses), exclusions, and auth prerequisites. Only the exact return shape (field names, ordering, empty-list behavior) is unstated, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description does not waste space restating an empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List EXZA-owned interactive process IDs and statuses') and immediately scopes it by excluding commands/output. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling exza_list_system_processes, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear negative routing rule ('unlike exza_list_system_processes, this is not a general OS process inventory') and states prerequisites. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over exza_read_interactive_process_output or exza_start_interactive_process, but the surrounding siblings make the intent easy to infer.

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