get_running_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about prerequisites (e.g. whether ssh_setup_credentials must be called first), whether access is via SSH or local, or any failure modes; the presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the legacy status and then the action, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure concision.

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?

With an output schema covering return shape and only one parameter, the minimum is nearly met, but for a legacy tool sitting beside an ssh_ prefixed replacement, the description should explain which to prefer and what setup is required.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'from Linux host' partially clarifies that hostname identifies a Linux target, but no format, resolution rules, or remote-vs-local semantics are given for the single required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Get running processes from Linux host' — and flags itself as 'Legacy compatibility', which hints at the newer sibling ssh_get_running_processes. It is clear what the tool does, but the differentiation from the sibling is implied rather than stated.

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 'Legacy compatibility' prefix hints that this is a fallback, but it never names ssh_get_running_processes or any condition for choosing between them. An agent has no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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