list_processes

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

The description adds a behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that listing does not grant authorization to attach, which is an auth-related nuance not covered by the readOnly/idempotent hints. This is valuable for the agent to understand the tool's limitations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing a single additional clarifying sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with minimal schema and helpful annotations, but the lack of parameter explanation and any description of return format leaves gaps. The core purpose is clear, but the agent is left to infer how to use the query parameter and what the output looks like.

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 describes a single optional 'query' parameter but provides no description, and the tool description does not explain how 'query' affects the results. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List attachable processes.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'attach' by clarifying that listing does not authorize attachment, eliminating ambiguity about its role.

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 implies the tool is used to discover attachable processes before a separate attachment action, and the note 'Listing does not authorize attachment' signals that this tool is not a substitute for 'attach'. While it does not explicitly name an alternative, the context is clear enough for the agent to infer when to use it.

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