signalgrid_process_snapshot

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: includes full executable paths, returns either a markdown table or JSON envelope, and outputs 'Error: ...' if ps fails. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 front-loaded with a purpose summary, followed by usage guidance and an Args block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancies or fluff. It is long enough to be useful but tightly structured.

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?

For a read-only, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and an output schema (Has output schema: true), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. It even handles error cases and suggests integration with a sibling tool. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., name_contains is a 'Case-insensitive substring filter'). The tool description repeats the parameter meanings but adds no new semantic depth beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 begins with 'Point-in-time snapshot of running processes' and lists the exact fields (pid, parent, user, %CPU, %MEM, command path). This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like signalgrid_installed_apps or signalgrid_listening_services.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use to confirm an agent/daemon is actually running' and 'spot suspicious processes.' It even suggests pairing with signalgrid_codesign_inspect for suspicious paths, giving a clear when-to-use and complementary alternative.

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