process_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('process.read permission') and a behavioral detail ('sorted by CPU usage'), which are useful beyond the basic action. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects, which would be expected for a read operation without an output schema.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('List running processes'), includes a key detail (sorting by CPU usage), and ends with the permission requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or clutter.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is the only source of contextual information. It provides the tool's purpose and permission requirement but does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., process objects with PID, command, CPU percentage). This is a notable gap for a listing tool, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the impact.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 the tool's function: 'List running processes sorted by CPU usage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_info (which provides details on a specific process) and process_kill (which terminates processes). The verb 'list' and the resource 'running processes' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage (when you need to list processes) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'for more details on a single process, use process_info.' The usage is clear from context but not explicitly differentiated.

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