managed_lifecycle_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, authorization needs, or side effects. It only states it produces a report, but does not indicate if it is read-only, requires privileges, or has any impact.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists key states. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description is minimal. It does not specify the return format, whether the report is a summary or detailed list, or how to interpret results, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. Description adequately covers the tool's function without needing parameter explanations.

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?

Description specifies the tool reports lifecycle state for cpe-run managed processes and lists five specific possible states (running, missing, exited, expired, PID-reuse mismatch), making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like managed_stale_report or process_explain. The description does not mention appropriate contexts, alternatives, or exclusions.

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