processes_overview

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scope ('current and completed' external processes), which partially duplicates the status enum rather than disclosing new behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though extremely terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a trivial overview tool the remaining gaps are the missing sibling routing and status-filter semantics.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single status parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Current and completed' loosely maps to the running/completed enum values but omits the 'all' default and gives no explicit guidance on how the filter behaves.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (external processes managed by ForgeMCP) with clear scope (current and completed). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling process_get, which an agent would need to distinguish a list-overview from a single-process lookup.

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 statement of when to use this versus process_get or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The reader must infer that this is the list/overview variant from the name alone.

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