get_process_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: it communicates a read-only metadata operation and lists exactly what aspects are queried. It does not mention possible failure modes or whether it could block, but for a simple getter these are minor gaps, and the described behavior is transparent enough for typical agent use.

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, using bolding and section labels to front-load the core purpose. Every sentence serves a decision-making purpose—what it does, when to use, what not to use, and how to bootstrap the parameter—without redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content, and usage disambiguation thoroughly. It omits explicit return format or error behavior, but the listed metadata categories and clear guidance make it practically complete for correct tool selection and 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 input schema already gives 100% coverage for the single pid parameter, including format examples. The description adds a helpful tip to use list_processes for discovery, but this is contextual guidance rather than enriching the parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata about a process'), enumerating exact content types (function, memory usage, queue length, links, monitors, stacktrace). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools get_process_state and get_process_dictionary, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct.

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 provides an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section ('identity and vital signs') and a 'NOT FOR' section that names the precise alternative tools for excluded cases. It also advises using list_processes first when the PID/name is unknown, giving clear actionable guidance for selection and sequencing.

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