list_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the two most important behavioral facts (metadata-only, agent-scoped) which convey a safe read operation. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether finished sessions are included, or whether the listing is bounded — gaps that matter for a session-listing call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the two qualifiers appended in the order an agent needs them (scope, then exclusion). Nothing redundant or padded.

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 listing with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, whose processes, and that output is excluded. The remaining gap is what 'session metadata' actually contains (IDs, status, timestamps) and how many sessions come back, which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 ('List') and resource ('process session metadata'), plus two scoping constraints: only sessions 'created by this agent' and explicitly 'without including process output'. The output exclusion directly separates it from the sibling read_process_output, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'without including process output' implicitly routes the agent to read_process_output when output is actually wanted, and the 'created by this agent' scope sets the boundary of what is listed. It stops short of naming the alternative or stating when-not-to-use explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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