process_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by explaining ASLR: a module's base_address shifts each launch while internal offsets persist. It stops short of auth/rate-limit or freshness caveats.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and complete on its own, immediately naming the returned fields. The second paragraph is longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter read tool, but its content earns most of its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing conceptual context (ASLR, base+offset) and next-step tools, leaving only the session_id semantics undocumented.

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% and the lone session_id parameter is never mentioned in the description. 'Open target' only loosely implies the session must come from open_process; the parameter's origin and expected format are left entirely to inference.

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 ('Summarize an open target') and enumerates the exact payload (bitness, address space, modules, threads), which cleanly distinguishes it from list_processes and list_memory_regions. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Implicitly scoped to an already-open target, but never says when to reach for this versus list_processes or list_memory_regions. The references to find_pointer_paths and resolve_pointer_chain guide the surrounding workflow rather than this tool's selection, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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