List Manufacturing Processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the result is scoped to a server-supported subset (unsupported processes exist and will not appear), and calling it prevents downstream check failures. It does not explicitly declare read-only semantics, but 'List' plus zero parameters makes the safety profile evident.

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 sentences, zero waste: what is returned first, how to use it second. The ordering directive is front-loaded where an agent will read it while planning the call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a zero-parameter enumeration tool requires little else. The description supplies the only context that matters: the list is a subset of all real-world processes, and it is a preflight step.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and resource — 'List the manufacturing processes this server has limits for' — plus the secondary payload ('which features each one covers'). This clearly separates it from process_limits and process_feasibility, which operate on a named process, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Call this first when a question names a process, so an unsupported process is visible before a check fails' gives a concrete trigger condition and an ordering rule with rationale. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use after this call, but the when-to-use guidance is unambiguous.

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