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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action 'list running processes', which implies a read-only operation. But it does not explicitly mention the absence of side effects, permissions, or what the return value contains. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the key constraint (no session required) is included efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what it does and an important prerequisite (no session needed). It does not describe return format, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and clarity of the purpose.

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 100% (the only parameter 'udid' has a description). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List running processes on an iOS device.' This is clear and distinct from sibling tools, and the added 'No automation session required' further distinguishes it from session-dependent tools like ios_start_session or ios_end_session.

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 a clear usage context: it does not require an automation session, which tells the agent when it can invoke this tool versus tools that need a session. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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