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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sort order (busiest first) and the field set, which is meaningful context, but does not cover pagination, output limits, or freshness/snapshot semantics. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded, the returned fields parenthesized, and the ordering constraint stated last. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only list tool, the description plus annotations plus schema are largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, without an output schema and with no mention of result limits, pagination, or whether results are a live snapshot or cached, some operational detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single 'device' parameter documented including its optionality condition. The description adds no parameter details, so baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Show) and resource (programs running on the computer), and enumerates the returned fields (pid, user, CPU, memory, running time, name) with an ordering rule (busiest first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_devices, list_sessions, or read_process_output.

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 implies usage for inspecting running processes, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over read_process_output or interact_with_process, nor does it state when-not-to-use. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose rather than stated.

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