process_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool reports runtime and output offsets, giving some behavioral context, but does not disclose edge behaviors such as stale-PID handling (though the schema's process_id parameter hints at this). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. Every phrase conveys distinct information about the action and the returned data.

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 read-only status tool with a simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return fields (status, runtime, offsets) and the target resource. It could explicitly note that it does not return output content itself, but the word 'offsets' and the sibling read_process_output make that inferable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; both pid and process_id are already documented with references to start_process. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('managed background process'), and the exact data returned (status, runtime, current output offsets). This differentiates it from siblings like read_process_output (output content) and list_processes (system-wide listing) without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 'managed background process' implies the intended context (processes started by start_process), and the listed return fields suggest when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs read_process_output or process_wait), so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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