List Background Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main job is to add context. It does so by naming the returned fields and the purpose (checking workers). No contradictions; the description complements annotations well.

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-load the key information: what the tool returns and why to use it. Every word adds value, and there is 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 no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure (command, user, process count, status) and purpose. Pagination and response format are not detailed, but the schema parameters (cursor, page_size) imply pagination support, which is adequate for a straightforward list 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% with all seven parameters described in detail. The description does not add additional parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No extra value is provided, but none is required.

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 daemons and queue workers on a server, specifying returned fields (command, user, process count, status) and the intended use case (checking queue workers are running and correctly sized). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servers or list_certificates.

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 gives an explicit use case ('Use it to check queue workers are running and correctly sized'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool. It does not provide negative usage cases or alternatives, but the use case is clear enough for its simple purpose.

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