get_running_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by clarifying that 'running processes' includes active applications and background services, and it notes that output_file saves results as JSON. However, it does not disclose potential errors, device selection behavior when device_id is omitted, or any permissions required.

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 very concise, with a clear opening line, a helpful elaboration, and a compact args listing. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple read-only nature of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and the adequate parameter descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral caveats, but these are less critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: device_id is a device serial number, and output_file is a path for saving JSON results. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 it gets a list of running processes and identifies active applications and background services. This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as get_installed_packages, though the resource 'running processes' is inherently distinct.

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 like get_installed_packages or capture_logcat. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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