shell_list

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose scope (session-bound) and returned content (state and command). It leaves out whether completed jobs are included, whether results are truncated or ordered, and whether the listing exposes the identifiers needed by shell_output/shell_kill.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and scope before the returned fields.

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?

Zero parameters and no output schema means the description must characterize the result set, and it only partially does so ('state and command'). For a listing tool that feeds shell_output and shell_kill, the absence of any mention of job identifiers or result shape is a meaningful gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly adds the implicit filter (this session) that explains why no arguments are needed.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List background jobs') with an explicit scope ('started in this session') and a hint at payload ('state and command'). It is clearly distinct from shell/shell_kill, but it never names the sibling it complements (shell_output), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent is expected to infer it should call this to discover jobs before using shell_output or shell_kill. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing statement.

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