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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and idempotent, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable context beyond these hints: the 100-per-page cap, default inclusion of both legacy v1 and v2 processes, the lightweight metadata fields (capture counts, contributors, status), and the 'most recently updated first' ordering. This transparently sets expectations for what the agent will receive.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, ordering, return content, alternative endpoints, default versions, filter hints, and page cap. It is front-loaded with the core 'List Clarity processes' phrase and uses semicolons to pack related information compactly without fluff.

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 no output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it describes the lightweight return metadata (capture counts, contributors, status), ordering, pagination cap, default v1/v2 behavior, and filter options. It even points to full read-model endpoints for v1/v2 rows, covering what an agent needs to decide whether this tool suffices or a fetch of full details is required.

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 coverage is 100% (all six parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explicitly naming 'search, status, and version' as the narrowing filters and clarifying that 'v1 and v2 are returned by default', which helps the agent choose parameters correctly without rereading the schema. It also relates limit/offset to pagination via the cap note.

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 states the exact action (list), the resource (Clarity processes), the scope (current team), and the ordering ('most recently updated first'). It also distinguishes itself from full-detail get operations by specifying it returns 'lightweight metadata' and gives read-model endpoints for v1/v2 full rows.

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 clear context: 'suitable for building a picker' and points to alternative endpoints for per-process read models, implying when not to use this list tool. It also explains that v1/v2 are returned by default and how to narrow discovery with search, status, and version. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool listClarityProcessSummaries or provide explicit exclusions.

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