process_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals destructive operations (kill), start capability, and GPU monitoring, but omits details about side effects (e.g., force/graceful), return values, or whether monitor/wait are long-running. This is a moderate gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with a clear purpose. The second sentence compactly lists operations and services with ports, with 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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers main operations and services but fails to explain additional parameters (cwd, env, timeout, waitForPort, force, graceful) and does not describe expected outputs or behavior of monitor/wait. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter understanding by linking operations to relevant parameters: list uses filter by name/port, start uses service or command, kill uses PID/name/port. This goes beyond the generic schema property descriptions.

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 defines a 'Process and service manager with GPU monitoring' and lists all operations (list, gpu, start, kill, status, restart, monitor, wait), distinguishing it from sibling file or HTTP tools. Specific predefined services with port numbers add concrete scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool by enumerating operations and service names, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It provides enough context for an agent to decide but lacks explicit exclusions.

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