Get Process Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that results are cross-platform and deep (threads, modules, memory), but gives no cost, latency, or volume expectations for an introspection call that could be expensive.

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 well-formed and front-loaded, but the appended 'CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.deep-introspection-telemetry: Deep Introspection Telemetry' line is an internal taxonomy tag that restates nothing useful and dilutes the definition. A single trailing sentence of noise keeps it from a 4.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations already carry the safety profile. What remains is thin but sufficient for a one-optional-parameter read tool: purpose and payload dimensions are stated, so an agent can call it correctly.

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% and the single pid parameter is fully documented there, including the null-means-list-all default. The description adds no format, scope, or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 and resource ('Retrieves deep cross-platform process details') and enumerates the payload dimensions (threads, modules, memory), which distinguishes it from shallow list tools like sm_process_operations. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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?

Usage is only implied: the intent of a 'deep' retrieval tool is inferable, but the description never says when to call this versus sm_process_operations or capture_system_snapshot. The important branching behavior (empty PID lists all processes) is only stated in the schema, not in the description.

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