list_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format ('A formatted table of all processes with names, IDs, and descriptions') which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Lists' implies read-only).

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines, and return format. Each sentence earns its place - the purpose is front-loaded, the bulleted list efficiently communicates usage scenarios, and the return format is clearly specified. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, specific usage guidelines, and detailed return format. It doesn't need to explain parameters (none exist) and adequately describes what the tool returns. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list operation, this is reasonably complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't waste space explaining non-existent parameters. It focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 purpose with 'Lists all available processes in the organization' - a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('processes') with scope ('in the organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_process_details' by indicating this lists ALL processes rather than getting details of a specific one. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_project_process_id' which might overlap in purpose.

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 explicit usage guidelines with a bulleted list of three specific scenarios: 'See what processes are available', 'Find process IDs for project creation or configuration', and 'Check which process is set as the default'. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_process_details' for specific process information.

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