agency-hosting_listWebsiteProcessesV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that this is a polling/list operation, describes the returned state model (unique ID, type, status with running/completed/failed), and notes that it covers active and recently completed processes. It does not detail pagination, retention windows, or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are clear.

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 compact and information-dense. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the remaining sentences add necessary context about fields and when to poll. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what processes are returned, what fields they contain, and when to call the tool. It leaves some minor details unspecified, such as how long results remain available or whether pagination applies, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 schema covers the only parameter, website_uid, at 100% with the description 'Agency Plan website UID.' The tool description reinforces that the processes belong to a specific website but does not add new parameter semantics such as UID format, where to find it, or validation rules. This meets the baseline for strong schema coverage.

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 it lists active and recently completed asynchronous processes for an Agency Plan website, using the specific verb 'Lists' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on websites, databases, cron jobs, or deployments.

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 provides clear usage context: poll after initiating async operations like SSL setup, backups, or cloning to track progress. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is sufficiently actionable.

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