list_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tracking scope (processes started via start_process) and implies a read-only list operation. It does not detail edge cases like whether finished processes are included, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or irrelevant detail.

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 (no parameters, no output schema). The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and scope. However, since there is no output schema, it could have briefly mentioned what the returned list contains (e.g., process IDs, names), but the current wording is adequate for a list operation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-related meaning, but none is needed—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' with a clear resource 'all processes started via start_process that this server is tracking.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_process_status or stop_process, which target individual processes, and from broader system process listing tools.

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 clearly states the scope: it lists only processes started via start_process and tracked by the server. This gives the agent context for when to use it vs. alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. The intended use is implied strongly enough.

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