list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It is extremely minimal, implying a read-only operation but not explicitly stating so, nor mentioning any side effects, ordering, or snapshot semantics. For a simple list tool this might be acceptable, but it leaves ambiguity about whether results are live or cached.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core purpose in a clear, efficient manner appropriate for a trivial parameterless tool.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for a list operation. However, it lacks any hint at output ordering, pagination, or whether results reflect persisted or in-memory state, which could confuse an agent expecting a specific format or volume.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, which raises the baseline. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; it correctly implies the tool requires no arguments.

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 ('list') and resource ('process definitions') and adds the scope ('the engine currently knows about'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_gates and engine_status, which operate on different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'currently knows about' implies a snapshot of engine state, but without explicit comparisons to list_gates or deploy_process, an agent may not know when this is the right choice.

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