list_background_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 correctly describes the tool as a read-only listing operation without side effects. The mention of 'currently tracked' sets expectations about scope.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List'.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally describe what 'currently tracked' means (e.g., processes started in this session), but the current level is adequate.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing missing.

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 lists all background processes and specifies that the output includes status and PIDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_background_process and stop_background_process which manage processes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of listing vs. managing processes is implied. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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