list_process_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining prerequisites. It does disclose that EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR is required, which is useful and non-obvious. However, it does not describe error behavior, return structure, or the read-only nature beyond the verb 'List', leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only necessary prerequisite information. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has a simple schema, a single optional parameter, and an output schema, so minimal description is needed. The environment variable requirement is an important addition that makes the tool usable. It could be more complete by noting the relationship to the check counterpart, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward listing 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 description coverage is 100% for the single boolean parameter active_only, so the schema already fully documents its meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('Peppol process identifiers'), and the source ('OpenPeppol eDEC code list'). It differentiates from sibling tools like check_process_id_in_codelist by indicating that this tool returns a list rather than validating a single identifier.

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 mentions the required environment variable and points to list_participant_id_schemes for reference, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus the sibling check_process_id_in_codelist. The usage context is partially implied by the name and sibling list, but not fully stated.

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