process_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the relationship to process_start (only lists those sessions) which is useful behavioral context, but does not state read-only safety, return format, ordering, or whether dead sessions are included.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the purpose clause attached efficiently. No wasted words.

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 no-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the essential purpose but omits what the list contains (session identifiers? statuses?), which an agent would need to use the output 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument list.

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 (List) and resource (process sessions), and explicitly scopes it to sessions created by process_start. This distinguishes it from process_read/process_write/process_kill, which operate on individual sessions rather than enumerating them.

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 phrase 'so persistent processes can be rediscovered across MCP client or conversation changes' clarifies the intent and when this tool is valuable, implying use after a client restart. It does not explicitly name siblings or state when-not-to-use, but the use case is clear.

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