list_process_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys a read-only listing behavior and the environment variable requirement, but it does not disclose failure modes, caching behavior, or what happens when the required directory is missing. The description is not misleading, but it leaves room for more behavioral context.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a necessary prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, the data source, and the required environment variable. It could add a note about when this list is needed, but that gap is minor for such a simple read-only 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?

The input schema already provides a complete description of the only parameter (`active_only`), so the description does not need to add much. It does not mention `active_only` explicitly, but the schema covers it fully, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Peppol process identifiers'), and the source ('OpenPeppol eDEC code list'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other aspects of the Peppol directory.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR') and points to a sibling tool for reference. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any exclusion criteria for when another tool would be more appropriate.

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