process_which

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It does not disclose behavior when the executable is not found, case sensitivity, or search order within PATH. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect agent expectations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks some necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the tool purpose, though the '[process]' prefix is somewhat redundant. Still, it is well-structured and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nesting) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description might be minimally adequate. However, it could mention the return value (the full path) or error handling. It is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'name'. The description implies the parameter is the executable name but adds no details about format, optional extensions, or constraints. More explicit guidance is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the full path of an executable in PATH.' The verb 'find' and the resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'process_run' which execute programs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., process_run). It does not mention prerequisites or cases where the tool should not be used. The description solely states functionality without usage context.

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