get_process_tree

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It notes 'Read' indicating read-only and 'bounded' suggesting limits, but does not disclose details like snapshot nature, potential recursion cost, or that parameters control bounds. The output schema helps but description remains thin.

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?

Single sentence is concise but under-specified. Every word is functional, yet critical parameter info is missing. Could be more informative without sacrificing 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?

With 3 parameters and no annotations, the description should detail parameter behavior. It only identifies root PID, ignoring depth and node limits. Despite an output schema, the missing parameter context leaves the tool incomplete for an AI agent.

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 0% and description only mentions 'root PID' implicitly via 'selected root PID'. It fails to explain max_depth and max_nodes parameters, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema. The description adds negligible value beyond parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states it reads a bounded parent-child process tree from a selected root PID, using specific verb 'Read' and precise resource. No sibling tools overlap with process trees, so differentiation is inherent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. However, sibling tools are unrelated (memory, file, CPU), so confusion is minimal. Implied usage for reading process hierarchies, but lacks when-not or prerequisites.

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