process_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not fully burdened. It adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: 'Does not reveal command arguments or environment secrets.' This is valuable privacy-relevant information that an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful privacy guarantee without bloating the description. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the essential purpose and a key privacy limitation. There is no output schema, so some details about the returned session representation are absent, but the tool complexity is low and annotations already cover safety. It is largely complete, with only minor room for clarifying what fields a listed session contains.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate; the description's scope note ('sessions created by this bridge') clarifies what the tool operates on but adds no param-specific detail because none exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('sessions created by this bridge'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_directory (files), process_start (creating sessions), and process_stop (stopping sessions), without needing to open schemas.

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 makes it clear the tool is for listing sessions, and mentions the scope ('created by this bridge'). However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related process tools (e.g., process_read, process_stop) or what it is not for, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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