list_script_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does convey a non-mutating read operation ('Lists') and mentions the return type ('Formatted string'), but it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or how 'recent' is determined.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, then organized into Args and Returns sections. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return value, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the many script-related siblings, and it does not fully resolve how the injected 'service' argument relates to the declared request schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is important. It names all three schema parameters and gives brief glosses, though most add little beyond what the schema already shows. The mention of 'service' is helpful context, but it does not clarify that this is an injected runtime client, not a user-supplied request field.

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 and resource: 'Lists recent execution processes for user's scripts.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_script_projects or get_script_metrics, since 'execution processes' is a unique scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over related script tools such as list_script_projects or get_script_metrics, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the stated purpose.

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