process_task

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 runtime behavior: real-time progress notifications at 10% and 100% via JSON-RPC and diagnostic log streaming through McpContext. It does not cover error behavior or whether the task has side effects, but the operational profile is largely conveyed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before usage guidance. Slightly repetitive in restating progress/logging twice, but nothing is wasted enough to impede selection.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage conditions, and runtime emissions. Return-value semantics are not needed since progress flows via notifications, leaving only error handling unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'input' fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or payload-shape detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Executes a simulated task') plus the distinguishing capabilities of progress tracking and context logging. It is clearly separable from the sibling arithmetic/text utilities, though what a 'simulated task' actually computes remains somewhat abstract.

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?

Explicitly names the selecting condition ('operations that require live progress updates and diagnostic log streaming via McpContext') and an exclusion ('Do not use for instant math calculations'), which directly routes the agent away from the arithmetic siblings.

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