project_list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and it discloses the returned content well, but it says nothing about required file validity, error behavior, or side effects. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The scoping statement comes first and the addressing guidance follows, so the agent gets the key information immediately.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, and the description nonetheless characterizes the output fields. It links to the update/remove siblings, but omits the meaning of the stage parameter and any error/edge-case behavior.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are 2 parameters, yet the description never explains parameters_file or stage. It explains the (list, index) addressing concept, but that is not an input parameter, so the input semantics are largely undocumented.

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 blocks of ProjectParameters.json), and enumerates exactly which fields are returned. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like project_update_process and project_remove_process, which it explicitly references.

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 frames the tool's role in the workflow: the (list, index) pair it returns addresses a block in project_update_process / project_remove_process, which implies when to use it. It does not state prerequisites or when-not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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