kratos_list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral nuances. It discloses the best-effort nature of parsing defaults, the effect of 'with_defaults=true', and that modules failing to parse are still listed without defaults. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'list') or mention any potential performance implications.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: scope, usage context, default behavior, and an alternative tool reference. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 description covers the main purpose, the optional defaults behavior, and points to a related tool for deeper schema needs. Since an output schema is provided, the lack of explicit return format is acceptable. Minor gaps remain around the filter parameters and whether the list is sorted, but overall it is reasonably 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?

Input schema provides only titles (Application, Name Filter, With Defaults) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description explains the behavior of 'with_defaults' in detail but says nothing about 'application' or 'name_filter', leaving meaning heavily reliant on parameter names alone.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'Python process modules', and adds context about their use as 'python_module' values. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kratos_get_process_defaults by explicitly pointing to that tool for single-module schemas.

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?

It states when to use the tool: when you need processes usable in ProjectParameters process lists. It also provides an explicit alternative: 'Use kratos_get_process_defaults for a single module's full schema', which clarifies the boundary between the two tools.

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