process_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that output is aggregated and that command lines are excluded, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return fields, or privilege requirements. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'Return' gives the action, 'aggregate process information' gives the scope, and 'without command lines' gives a key exclusion.

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?

Adequate for a no-argument summary tool, but because there is no output schema, the exact return shape is ambiguous ('aggregate process information' is broad). It tells enough to invoke the tool but not enough to fully anticipate what fields or structure the response will contain.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The schema coverage is effectively 100% for an empty parameter set, so the description adds all necessary semantic context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('aggregate process information'), and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without command lines'). It clearly maps to the process domain and is easy to distinguish from siblings about identity, resources, and network.

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 explicit timing, conditions, or alternative tools are stated. The domain ('process information') implies when to use it, and 'without command lines' implies a when-not, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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