process_scope_report

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only (no termination), but with no annotations, it omits potential performance impacts, permission requirements, or details about the reconciliation process. This is adequate but not thorough.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main actions and ends with a key qualifier. Every word is necessary and efficient.

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?

The description lacks output schema details, potential resource warnings, and safety info (since annotations are absent). It covers the core purpose but leaves gaps for a moderately complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having clear descriptions. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's actions: scanning local processes, reconciling with a session ledger, and reporting ownership, with an explicit differentiator 'without terminating anything' that distinguishes it from sibling cleanup 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?

The phrase 'without terminating anything' implicitly guides the agent to use this for read-only reporting rather than cleanup, but fails to explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like process_cleanup or process_explain.

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