process_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's only added behavioral detail is the temporal filter ("active and recently completed"), which usefully signals that older history is excluded, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource with the scope qualifier attached. Every element of the sentence does work.

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 parameterless list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. Since no output schema exists, it could have hinted at what each listed session contains or how results are ordered, but this is a minor gap for such a simple 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("persistent process sessions") with a qualifying scope ("active and recently completed"). This clearly separates it from process_read/process_input/process_kill, which act on a single session, though it does not name or reference those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before process_read or process_input, but the description states no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no contrast with sibling tools. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is spelled out either.

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