list_script_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing information but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it supports pagination (implied by 'pageToken' in schema but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List information about a script's executed processes'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the basic intent without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering logic, or response structure, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context lacks sufficient guidance for safe and effective invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 10 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining filter interactions or parameter constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('script's executed processes'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_processes_list' or 'get_script_metrics', which appear to have overlapping functionality, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'script_processes_list' or 'get_script_metrics'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid script ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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