ecp_supervisor_list_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' reasonably implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose response format, pagination, or whether 'supervised processes' include both running and stopped entries. For a simple read tool, 'list' is acceptable, but the absence of annotations leaves some ambiguity.

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 tight sentence delivers the core purpose. Nothing is redundant; the sentence structure is perfect for a tool this simple.

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-parameter shape, the injection is still not fully complete: there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a 'supervised process' is or what fields will be returned. Agents must rely on external knowledge or runtime heuristics. Still, for a bare-bones 'list all' tool, the core operation is fully specified.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'all supervised processes' correctly conveys that there is no filtering supported, which prevents an agent from looking for parameters that do not exist.

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 ('all supervised processes'), plus scoping to 'this account.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like ecp_supervisor_process_info (single process) and ecp_supervisor_remove_process (management action).

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 given about when to use this vs. sibling supervisor tools. It does not mention that process_info should be used for a single process, or that add/start/stop/restart are for operations. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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