list_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded structured results,' which gives some behavioral context about output shape and size limits, but it does not disclose details like exact returned fields, ordering, or whether the process list is a snapshot. There is 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and a key behavioral qualifier, though 'bounded structured results' is a little vague and could have been slightly more specific without harming brevity.

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 list operation with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify what fields the returned process objects contain (e.g., PID, name, CPU), which is a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to act on the results.

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 100%, so both 'limit' and 'filter' are already documented with type, bounds, default, and case-insensitivity. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond summarizing the result as bounded, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('operating-system processes'), and a scope modifier ('bounded structured results'), so it is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate it from, but the verb and resource are unambiguous enough to separate it from process_status, start_process, and stop_process.

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 implies usage whenever an agent needs to see current OS processes because of the clear 'List' verb. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like process_status, start_process, or stop_process, and it does not state any exclusions or limitations.

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