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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the computer-wide scoping behavior and the distinction from list_sessions, but does not describe the return format, ordering, or whether output is filtered, which is a minor gap against 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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling differentiation is placed second. Every part of the description contributes to tool selection.

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 tool is simple, has only two parameters with full schema documentation, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description adds the necessary selection context and sibling distinction, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (device, limit). The description does not need to explain them; however, it also does not add any extra semantic context about parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'computer-wide operating-system process list'. It names the exact scope and explicitly differentiates from list_sessions, which is a sibling tool in the same domain, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (user wants the computer-wide OS process list) and an explicit exclusion with an alternative (use list_sessions for processes started through ReMCP start_process). This fully routes the agent to the correct tool.

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