list-allowed-processes-in-cwd

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing any behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The brevity leaves significant 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 a single concise sentence, which is appropriately brief. However, it lacks sufficient informative content to earn a higher score; it is minimally adequate.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'allowed processes' are, how they are determined, or the format of the response. A more descriptive explanation is needed.

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 has one parameter 'cwd' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not add any meaning about the parameter beyond its presence. It fails to clarify its purpose, format, or default behavior.

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 'List allowed processes in current working directory', specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'allowed processes' with a scope qualifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-processes' which likely returns all processes. However, the term 'allowed processes' could be more explicitly defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list-processes'. The description does not mention prerequisites or contextual clues for selection.

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