ecp_supervisor_process_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get status/info' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or how app_name is resolved. The core operation is conveyed, but detail is sparse.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter read tool, this is minimally viable, but it omits what app_name should be set to and what the returned status/info includes. It is not fully self-contained, though the simple interface reduces the risk of incorrect invocation.

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 schema provides only a raw 'app_name' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that the entity is a 'supervised process,' which helps, but it does not specify the value format, how to discover valid names, or whether app_name is a path or label.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'status/info for one supervised process.' The singular scope distinguishes it from supervisor_list_processes and the start/stop/restart siblings, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The phrase 'one supervised process' implies a single-process lookup and sibling names provide context, but the agent is left to infer when to choose this over list_processes or other supervisor commands.

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