list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses role-based filtering ('visible to the member') and the server-side pagination behavior ('list may be incomplete if total > limit'), which are critical for the agent to understand the tool's limits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: role-based filtering, parameter definitions, and a crucial pagination warning. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, filtering behavior, and pagination caveat. It provides enough context for reliable invocation for a listing tool.

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 description provides rich semantics for all four parameters beyond the schema, including the default and max for limit, and cross-reference to list_pipelines for pipeline_id. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('List all processes'), the resource ('processes'), and the scope ('visible to the member'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_pipelines and get_process_details.

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 explains the filtering options (status, pipeline_id) and pagination parameters, giving clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_process_details for single-process retrieval or list_pending_requests for pending items.

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