get_process_details

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

The description mentions 'May warn on protected processes,' disclosing a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as authentication needs or whether the operation is read-only.

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 concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 description lists returned data types (modules, handle count, etc.) and mentions warnings, but given the complexity and lack of output schema, it omits details like how parameters are used, potential large output, or error conditions.

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 schema has two parameters (pid, name) both optional, but the description does not explain how they are used or their relationship (e.g., whether one is sufficient). With 0% schema coverage, the description should add meaning but only lists output fields.

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 provides deep process details including modules, handle count, threads, command line, and memory breakdown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes (which likely lists processes without details) and analyze_pe (which focuses on PE files).

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 implies the tool is used when deep process details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for non-use or prerequisites. No guidance on preventing warnings on protected processes.

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