show_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists processes but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination via limit parameter, or filtering via search. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 one sentence plus a brief follow-up, with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what fields are returned or mention pagination behavior. Missing guidance on using show_processdetails for details. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not describe workspaceId, modelId, limit, or search, so no added value.

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 lists available processes, defined as chained import/export actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_process and get_action_status by mentioning them as subsequent steps, but does not explicitly differentiate from show_processdetails or show_actions.

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 a clear usage flow: list processes with this tool, then run_process, then get_action_status to monitor. It implies context for when to use this tool but does not include explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention alternatives like show_processdetails.

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