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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping detail that this lists only ReMCP terminal sessions (not all OS processes), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or whether sessions are listed regardless of state, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary use case is front-loaded, and the sibling distinction is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not describing what the returned session list contains (e.g., session IDs, status), but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the device parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('ReMCP terminal sessions created by start_process'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_processes. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the closest alternative.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you need to know which ReMCP terminal sessions... are still running') and names the alternative (list_processes) for the computer-wide OS process list. This gives clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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