List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a header line followed by one line per task, the exact column set, and the wildcard semantics of the filter. The trailing 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation and adds nothing.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then the filter, then the follow-up tool, in a compact three-sentence block with no filler. The final 'Read-only' clause is the one piece that does not earn its place given the annotations.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing the result format (header plus per-task columns) and the filter semantics. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only listing; only edge behavior such as an empty task list or invalid pattern handling is unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above that by explaining that the pattern keeps only matching names and that '#?' is the Amiga equivalent of '*', with a worked example ('#?shell#?'). That clarifies a syntax convention an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 and resource ('List the tasks and processes running on the Amiga') and anchors it with a concrete analogy ('like a Unix ps'), then enumerates the exact output columns. This clearly separates it from siblings such as amiga_windows or amiga_ui_list that also enumerate things.

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?

It explains what 'pattern' does and explicitly routes the next step: 'The address or name goes to amiga_kill.' That is useful lifecycle guidance. It stops short of naming an exclusion case or the scenario in which a filtered listing is preferable, so it is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use.

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