list_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the output fields (PID, state, exit code, duration, bytes captured, command preview) and the scope ('currently tracked by the server'). It does not mention side effects, but as a list operation none are expected, and the read-only nature is implied by 'List'.

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 two sentences: the first states the exact purpose and scope, the second enumerates the return payload. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers the purpose, scope, and returned metadata. It is complete and does not leave critical gaps for an agent to invoke or interpret results.

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 zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Per the baseline, a parameterless tool receives a 4, and the description does not need to explain anything further.

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 specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all managed background processes') and includes the type of data returned. It is easily distinguished from siblings like 'status' (likely single process) or 'send_signal' (mutating 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to get an overview of all managed background processes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize it as the appropriate choice for a full listing.

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