List Background Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying the session boundary and output fields. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return details. No unnecessary words, earning its place efficiently.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context: session scope, source, return fields. Complete for this low-complexity 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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% via absence). The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists background processes started via run_command_background during the current session, with status and specific return fields (PID, command, status, start time). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_command, run_command_background, and kill_process.

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?

Description explicitly defines the scope (background processes from run_command_background, session-limited) making it clear when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives, though the context is clear.

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