List Background Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned data, but says nothing about pagination limits, permission requirements, or rate constraints beyond what the schema's page_size note already explains.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the resource and payload, the second gives the use case. No preamble, no restating of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and pagination is covered by the schema's page_size note. However, for a 7-parameter, nested-object tool it omits any mention of the server scoping requirement, pagination follow-through, and how it relates to the neighboring log 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% and each of the 7 parameters (sort, cursor, filter, server, include, page_size, organization) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics — the fields it lists are output fields, not inputs.

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?

States the resource (daemons and queue workers) scoped to a server and enumerates the key fields returned (command, user, process count, status), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clear, but it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as get_background_process_log or list_scheduled_jobs.

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?

"Use it to check queue workers are running and correctly sized" gives a concrete decision context rather than vague filler. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer the per-process log tool), which keeps it short of a 5.

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