list_process_definitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: only the latest published version per key is returned (drafts and older versions excluded), and each entry carries a release flag gating whether an agent may open it – information absent from the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the scope, then the returned fields, then a one-clause disambiguation of definition versus instance with the named follow-on tool. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, purpose, version, steps, release flag). With no parameters and annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the schema also accepts additional properties freely. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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 process definitions) plus an explicit scope: the currently valid, most recently published version per key. The closing sentence distinguishes a definition (the model) from an instance (opened via open_process), which separates it from list_process_instances and get_process_definition.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: use this to discover what processes exist and whether each is LIBERADO for an agent to open, with open_process named as the follow-on action. It never explicitly says when to prefer get_process_definition or list_process_instances instead, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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