gcfr_current_process_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the Process_State encoding (0, 1–98, 99) and the filtering behavior, which is valuable beyond what annotations would provide. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any caveats, though 'Show' implies it.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the core action, then explains state values, and ends with usage and filtering hints. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 the output schema exists, return values do not need explanation. The description provides the critical process-state semantics, suggests a primary use case, and explains optional filtering. It is complete enough for a status tool with simple parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that stream_key and process_name are filters to narrow results, which clarifies their role. It does not define the values or formats, but the parameter names are self-descriptive and the filtering purpose is enough for an agent to use them.

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 'Show active processes and their current execution step,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like history or summary tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of the top tier.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to find stuck or long-running processes.' This is explicit guidance on when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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