list_open_terminals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The qualifier 'likely' usefully signals heuristic or approximate detection, and 'currently running on this machine' sets scope. However, it does not explicitly state that listing is read-only, how terminal processes are identified, or how reliable the result is.

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 efficiently conveys action, subject, and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema available, the description is mostly sufficient: an agent knows what action to perform and on what. It lacks usage guidance and a bit of behavioral transparency, but the low complexity and simple invocation keep it near-complete.

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 input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The 0-parameter baseline applies and no additional parameter explanation is 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?

States a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('likely terminal processes'), and temporal/local scope ('currently running on this machine'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like launch_terminal, which creates a terminal, and list_directory, which lists files.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The purpose is implied, but the description never tells an agent when it is the right choice or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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