find_zombies

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

The description complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and 'This tool never kills anything'. It details the exact heuristic logic and default filtering behavior, adding substantial context 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 highly concise, with three sentences packed with essential information. It front-loads core purpose, then covers behavior, parameter, safety, and output format without unnecessary words.

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 (single boolean parameter, clear heuristic), the description fully covers matching criteria, default exclusion behavior, the parameter's effect, relationship to sibling tools, and the return format. No gaps remain.

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 coverage for the single parameter (include_excluded) is 100%, and the schema already includes a thorough description. The tool description restates the parameter's effect but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool flags dev servers that appear abandoned, and precisely defines the three matching criteria (uptime > 6h, CPU < 1%, memory > 100MB). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it never kills anything and that results should be passed to kill_server.

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 explains that the tool is read-only and should be used to identify candidates, while kill_server is for termination. It also describes the default exclusion of noise processes and the include_excluded parameter, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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