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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it warns results are 'bounded' (i.e. not an exhaustive process dump) and discloses the auth requirement (account-bound computer:write OAuth plus prompted local owner approval), which the agent must anticipate before invoking.

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 short sentences: what it returns, which sibling to use instead, and what credentials are needed. Front-loaded with the resource, zero filler, no restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, sibling routing and auth prerequisites. The only gap is that 'bounded' is not quantified (how many processes, whether truncated), leaving the agent unsure how complete a picture it receives.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support, though it leaves 'bounded' unquantified.

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 ('Get a bounded snapshot of OS processes and their memory use') and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, exza_list_interactive_processes, so the agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('interactive EXZA-owned process sessions'), which is the main ambiguity risk in a toolset with two process-listing tools. It does not spell out when this tool itself is the right pick (e.g. diagnosing memory-heavy programs), but the exclusion covers the practical decision point.

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