system_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List running processes', with no mention of permissions, read-only nature, error scenarios, or output behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that likely requires system access.

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 sentence contains the essential information with no waste. It is front-loaded and concise. However, it is slightly too brief and could incorporate a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (no output schema, 2 optional parameters, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on default limit, output format, or potential limitations. It is minimally complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (limit, filter) with 100% coverage. The description adds only a redundant mention of filtering by name, offering no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameters adequately.

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 ('List') and resource ('running processes'), clearly indicating the tool's functionality. It also includes the optional filter capability, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_uptime or system_status that handle different system information.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., docker_stats for container processes). However, the purpose is straightforward and the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct, allowing an implicit usage inference. Some guidance on exclusions would improve clarity.

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