process_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It uses the read-only verb 'Get' and enumerates what is returned, making the read-only nature clear. However, it does not disclose potential caveats (e.g., whether a process must be attached, or if the call could be expensive), which would add depth. Still, for a read-oriented tool, it is reasonably transparent.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a crisp usage directive. It wastes no words, front-loads the core purpose, and every element earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It gives a clear high-level overview and explicit guidance on when to invoke it, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing what the output covers, complementing the (empty) input schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'process info', then lists specific components (main module, base address, entry point, threads, PEB). This distinguishes it from more narrowly scoped sibling tools like windbg_peb or get_threads, which focus on a single aspect.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'USE WHEN: starting analysis — typically the first call to orient yourself.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not mention exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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