windbg_list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool executes the cdb '|' command, which is a simple read-only operation. However, it does not describe behavior under error conditions (e.g., no active session), return format, or any side effects. For a simple listing, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and adds a clarifying parenthetical with the underlying command. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., process IDs, names, exit codes). It is minimal but arguably sufficient for an agent to infer the return from a process listing. However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more detail on expected results would improve completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it does clarify the session context.

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 processes in the current debugger session'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('processes'), and the parenthetical '(cdb '|')' uniquely identifies the underlying command, distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_list_modules or windbg_list_threads.

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 phrase 'in the current debugger session' provides clear context for when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently defined. Sibling tools with different purposes make the context clear enough, though no direct comparison is given.

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