router_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'bounded' behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or any operational nuances beyond the schema's limit parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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-only snapshot tool with one well-constrained parameter and safe annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by hinting at the returned process fields (e.g., PID, command), but the scope and bounded nature are clear enough for 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 single parameter 'limit' is not described in the description, but the JSON schema provides clear type, default, minimum, and maximum constraints. The word 'bounded' weakly reinforces the limit parameter's purpose, but the description does not meaningfully compensate for the 0% schema description 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 'Get a bounded snapshot of running processes' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool as a process-list reader. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like router_services and router_system_info by focusing on running processes and a bounded snapshot.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for current running-process state, nor does it contrast with related tools such as router_services or router_system_info. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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