process_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context ('started by this bridge'), but it does not describe return format, pagination, or any behavioral details beyond that scope.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the scope ('started by this bridge') is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. The only gap is lack of differentiation from sibling list_processes, but the annotations already handle safety and idempotency.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% description coverage. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none are needed; baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('background processes') and adds the scope 'started by this bridge.' This is clear, but it does not distinguish the tool from sibling list_processes or job_list, leaving some ambiguity about what makes this list distinct.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_processes, process_output, or job_list. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions that would select it over a sibling.

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