get_process_dictionary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dictionary's location, contains examples of entries, and notes it's a read operation ('Read'). It does not mention error handling for invalid PIDs or return format, but the scope is well explained.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The WHEN TO USE / NOT FOR structure is highly scannable, and every sentence adds value.

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 read tool with one parameter, the description covers what, why, and when to use it, plus sibling differentiation. No output schema exists, but the description adequately sets expectations.

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 is 100% with a single well-described parameter ('PID string or registered name'). The description adds no extra parameter detail but doesn't need to since schema already fully documents it.

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 it 'Read the process dictionary' and explains it's hidden metadata outside main state. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by listing what it contains (OTP internals like $ancestors) and what it's NOT for (main state, vitals).

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE (metadata not in GenServer state, OTP ancestry, flags) and NOT FOR sections naming specific alternatives (get_process_state, get_process_info). This gives clear decision guidance.

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