list_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the exact return JSON structure ({ok, count, processes} with specific fields) and the optional filtering/sorting behavior, beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundant filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple listing tool with strong read-only annotations, a complete schema for its parameters, and the description's explicit return format, the combined context fully covers functionality, inputs, and outputs. No missing behavioral or output details for safe invocation.

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 schema's nested properties (limit, sort_by, name_filter) include detailed descriptions, so effective coverage is high. The description merely lists 'optional name filter, sort key and limit' without adding semantics beyond identifying optionality, which is a minor addition over the 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 'List running processes with pid, name, memory and CPU usage', using a specific verb and resource. It includes the scope ('running') and the key output fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kill_process or list_windows.

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 through its clear purpose—when you need to inspect running processes—but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusionary guidance. It mentions optional filters/sort/limit, which hints at flexibility but does not compare to sibling tools.

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